the religious views of david hume

7/21/2019 The Religious Views of David Hume.

1/245

TH

RELIGIOUS VIEWS OF D VID

HUM


2/245

THE RELIGIOUS VIEWS OF D VID HUME

Degree: Mas

t e r of Arts

Depar tment : Relig ious S tudies

Author: Vij i thasena

Rajapakse

BSTR CT

This d i s se r t a t i o n seeks in

the

main to c l a r i fy , and

where approp r i a t e ,

a l so

to eva lua te Hume s re l ig ious

views.

Hume s

re l ig ious

r e f l ec t io n s

were

in f luenced

by

a

va r i e t y

of

f ac to r s - -e sp ec i a l l y

by h i s own

negat ive convict ions and the

cl imate of opin ion t h a t preva i led dur ing h i s age. After

a re

view

of the na ture and ex ten t

o f those

inf luences ,

the

main

d i scuss ion

in

t h i s

s tudy i s focused on

Hurne s var ious wri t ings .

Hume

was r e lu c t an t

t o a t t ack re l ig ion

in

a f o r t h r i gh t

fash ion i

and

he

made roany

specious

profess ions

of

b e l i e f .

However,

the

main d r i f t

of

hi s

r e f l e c t i ons was

l a rge ly negat ive and scep t i ca l .

He dispIayed a h o s t i l e a t t i t u d e towards re l ig ion , and refused to

a l low t h a t God s ex i s t ence i s

demonstrable .

His

var ious

argu-

ments tended

to

undermine

the

r a t i o n a l

foundations of ph i lo

sophical theo logy .

His

c r i t i q u e in

f a c t cons t i tu ted

an a t tack

on

a

nurnber o f

d e i s t i c

as

weI l

as

orthodox

pos i t i ons .

Never-

t he le ss , Hume was not a dogmatic a t h e i s t . Despi te hi s ba s i c

a l l y secuIar ou t look ,

he

was even prepared

to

accept a vague

and

tenuous forro o f the ism.


3/245

McGILL UNIVERSITY

THE

RELIGIOUS

VIEWS

OF

D VID

HUME

y

Vijithasena Rajapakse

A

thesis presented

to

The Faculty of

Graduate

Studies and

Research

in

p r t i l

ful f i l lment

of

the requirements

for

the degree

of

Master

of Arts

July

1972.

Vijithasena Rajapakse 973


4/245

BBREVI TIONS

The

undermentioned

abbreviat ions

and short t i t l e s have been

adopted

in references to

Hume s writ ings throughout the

tex t

o f

th is

thes i s

The

edi t ions used

are

indicated in

the

Bibliography.

Treat ise

Abstract

Essays

EHU

EPM

N R

Dialogues

My Own

Life

Let ters

New

Let ters

A Treat ise

of

Human

Nature

n

Abstract of A Treat ise

of

Human

Nature

Essays

Moral Po l i t i ca l

and

Li terary

n Enquiry

Concerning

Human Understanding

n Enquiry Concerning the

principles

of MoraIs

The

Natural History

of

Relig ion

Dialogues

Concerning Natural Religion

The Life

o f

David Hume Esquire,

wri t ten

by

himself

The Letters of

David

Hume

New Letters of

David

Hume.


5/245

T BLE

OF CONTENTS

page

ABBREVIATIONS

T BLE

OF

CONTENTS

Chapter

l

INTRODUCTION

1

THE

B CKGROUND

4

A TREATISE OF HUM N N TURE

33

IV

ESSAYS

64

ENQUIRIES

98

VI

THE N TUR L

HISTORY

OF

RELIGION 137

VII

DIALOGUES

CONCERNING N TUR L

RELIGION 18

V

CONCLUSION

223

BIBLIOGRAPHY

233


6/245

CH PTER

l

INTRODUCTION

This

disse r ta t ion seeks to determine the nature and

signi f icance of Hume s

rel igious views.

To tha t end, t seeks

to examine Hume s

works

on rel igion,

as weIl as

the

refer -

ences to

re l igion that are

to be

found

in

his various

other

wri t ings.

Hume s

re l igious

thinking

had i t s roots

in

his back-

ground.

His

personal convict ions,

his

philosophical

pr in-

ciples

as

weIl as the rel igious

reflect ions

of

his age were

major

factors in tha t background. Chapter

I I

seeks to review

the

influences exerted by those various factors on

Hume

In

the process, t also seeks to suggest

sorne

basic approaches to

the interpreta t ion

of

his re l igious thought .

The

main conclu-

sions

tha t

emerge from

tha t

chapter

are

as

follows:

a)

Hume s

personal convictions

were largely negative;

though he

had a long

standing

in te res t in

re l igion


7/245

he was

not

incl ined to appreciate

i t

much .

b)

A

broad appeal

to

experience

tha t

is

in

harmony

with

his

general

philosophical

outlook can

be

seen

in

ume s

rel igious thought . However,

his

rel igious

re -

f lect ions

do

not exemplify a rigo rous

appl icat ion

of his

epistemological pr inc ip les . Sorne scholars

have

advanced

the

l a t t e r

point of

view. The

c la r i f i ca t ion

of

the

re l a -

t ionship

between

Hume s

philosophical

and

rel igious

views

doeu not seem

to admit of

simple solut ion in terms

of

sorne

overal l formula. The disse r ta t ion

as

a whole i s in a sense

involved

in the

invest igat ion of th is

i ssue .

c)

Hume s

rel igious views

had

a

specia l

connection with the

cl imate of opinion tha t

prevailed

in his t ime.

His

argu-

ments

had

a

specia l

bearing on the

de is t i c

controversy

of the eighteenth century. ume also adopted

the

tech-

niques

as weIl as the conventions of contemporary heterodox

writers

on re l ig ion . He masked his negative

views on

r e l i -

gion with formaI

and

specious affirmationB

of be l i e f .

The

discussion

re la t ing

to

Hume s

background (Chapter

I I , is followed by an examination of his re levant writ ings.

Five chapters are devoted to

t is

examination and they are


8/245

arranged

according

to

the

dates

of publication of Hume s

works.

The

major

aim

in

those

chapters

i s

to

s t a t e Hume s views

on

matters

tha t concern

re l ig ion . Where appropriate, some

assess-

ment

of the s ignif icance

of

those

views

i s also attempted.

The conclusion

(Chapter

VIII) involves a summing up of

Hume s

general posi t ion on re l igion with specia l emphasis on his

stand on theism.


9/245

CH PTER

I I

THE B CKGROUND

n

understanding

of the

various

influences

tha t

con-

t r ibuted

to

mould a wri t e r s opinions on a

given

subject is

often an interest ing and a necessary prel iminary to the study

of those opinions themselves. s is to be expected, th i s is

very much the

case

with

David

Hume.

His

rel igious views,

with

respect

to

the i r or ig ins ,

development and ar t icula t ion , may

fa i r ly

be said

to have had the i r roots

in

a complex background.

The factors tha t served

to de termine tha t

b c k g ~ o u n d

were

in-

deed diverse . And in view of the objects of the

present

study,

t would in any event be weIl

to seek

sorne

appreciation

of

the i r

re la t ive worth. The observations of

E.C.

Mossner, the

widely acclaimed

contemporary biographer of Hume, have a par-

t i cu lar

appropriateness

in th is context , and as such are worthy

of

ci ta t ion .

Interpreta t ion of

a philosophical

tex t , as in -

deed

of a I l

texts , (he

remarks),

must der

ive primari ly from

4


10/245

5

the

tex t i t s e l f .

Yet,

especia l ly

in

the

case

of ear l ie r

philosophers, the reader may

be assis ted

by secondary

infor-

mation,

various types

of

his tor ica l knowledge,

such

as

the

precise

rneaning of key

words a t the

time

writ ten, the in te l

lec tual

climate of the age, the biography of

the author. l

Consequently, a general inquiry into the background to Hume's

rel igious

opinions

would

be a

convenient and fe l ic i tous s t a r t -

ing point for the

present disser ta t ion .

Hume's rel igious views found

expression

through a

varie ty

of

fu l l length works as well as

l i t e ra ry pieces.

Sorne

of these

clear ly

t r ea t

of

rel igious subjec ts .

2

But evidence

such

as

would be germane for the current inquiry may

also

be

gleaned from his ostensibly non-religious works. Hence these

1

3 1 f 1 t t d

t t e r w r ~ t ~ n s are a so 0 re evance 0

any

a emp e

ac-

count of Hume's re l igious views tha t stakes a claim to a meas-

ure

of

completeness. In

his

various

discussions on

re l igion,

ume ra re ly re fe rs to his

rnany contemporaries

or immediate

pre-

decessors who

propounded

a

wide

variety of

theories

on tha t

complex

theme. Nor has he

even

sought to clar i fy

his

own

rel igious convict ions in

a

for thr ight

fashion.

These charac-

t e r i s t i c s ,

wh

en taken in conjunction with Hurne s generally

asceptic

and detached

mode of exposit ion,S tend

to

convey


11/245

6

the impression tha t his rel igious reflect ions are

far

re

moved from the influences

of his

time and milieu.

That

im-

press ion

however,

as the sequel would

endeavour to

show, is

grea t ly misleading. Moreover,

Hume s posi t ion

as a

prominent

thinker

with a specif ie perspective on the nature and

basis

of

knowledge

serves to l o u d ~ i s s u e

as

to the background from

which

his

rel igious views may

be sa id

to

have

emerged. For one may

be easi ly

led

to suppose that

his

rel igious opinions are

based

upon

or re f l ec t

his

philosophical standpoint

in

a di rec t man

ner.

This presumption

in

turn is

an

over simplif icat ion

and

harbours many

inaecuracies .

The

foregoing circumstances then

seem

to

afford strong reasons for

a general

invest igat ion into

the

backdrop of ideas

and movements arnidst

which Hume s

r e l i

gious views

came to be developed

and

ar t icu la ted . Such an in

vest igat ion, besides

supplying

an indispensable biographical

and

his tor ica l

dimension to the present

study, may also

con-

t r ibute in sorne

measure

towards

the

c la r i f i ca t ion of

those

ambiguit ies

and

inconsistencies

such as are peculiar to

Hume s

writ ings

on re l ig ion .

6

Hume

was

born

and

ra ised in

eighteenth century

Scot-

land, his

l i f e spanning the

period between 1711 and

1776. s

has

been

already

noted, t

i s d i f f i cu l t to arrive a t a precise


12/245

understanding

of the myriad

influences

tha t

would

have

been

instrumental

in

fashioning

his

re l igious

opinions

on

the basis

of

his

writings alone. His

autobiographical

sketch of sorne

f ive

pages,

apar t

from

i t s high compression,

s defic ient in

references to the

subject

of

re l ig ion .

Thus, an

attempted

inqui ry

into the

background of

Hume s

rel igious views must

needs reach

out for

wider sources

in

order

to

obtain an

adequate

understanding.

There

are three

sa l ien t

factors

tha t

meri t

at tent ion

in

an

inquiry of tha t

sor t . These

r e la te

to

l) the or ig in and growth

of

Hume s rel igious convictions,

(2) the philosophical

outlook

with which ume came to be

widely

ident i f ied,

and

(3) the

s t a t e of

rel igious opinion tha t

prevai led

in

Bri ta in

during

the

eighteenth century. The pos-

s ib le

signi f icance of

each

of

these

factors to

Hume s

re l i -

gious views cannot be rated as

of

equal

value.

Hence

t

s

important to de termine

the i r re la t ive

worth by an examination

of

the

re levant evidence.

1 . Personal Background.

Hume s

personal

rel igious convict ions,

( in

a

posi t ive

o r

negative

sense),

may fa i r ly

be

said

to have

played sorne

par t in fashioning

the

views tha t he expressed through his


13/245

8

writ ings.

His in teres t

in

re l igion has of ten been charac-

ter ized

as

a

primary

one,

going

back

ta h is

early

youth.

8

Though

Hume s

major works on re l igion were published in the

l a t t e r

par t of

his l i t e ra ry

career ,

an

in teres t

in

matters

r e la t ing to

re l ig ion

was very

much in

evidence even in the

preparatory s tages of

tha t career . The markedly auto-

biographical l e t t e r to

Dr.

Cheyne,

for

instance, suggests an

acquaintance

with

the writ ings of

French

mystics.

9

Moreover,

re f lec t ions on the

philosophical

aspects of miracles

appears

to have

engaged his at tent ion

as ear ly as 1737,

when

the doc

.

10

t r ines of the Treat ise

were

jus t receiving formulat1on.

Mossner s research in to Hume s ear ly

memoranda

of

the

period

between 1729 and 1740 also tends to throw l igh t on the young

phi losopher s

concern

with

a

var ie ty

of issues

which

are

re le

I l

vant to

theology.

ume himself, in a

l e t t e r

to Gilbert

12

El l io t of Minto, recal led an ear ly record of

h is

own author-

ship, (writ ten

before the age

of twenty,

and subsequently de-

stroyed), in

which the f luctuat ing s ta te

of

his rel igious

opinions w i l S ~ di l igent ly de ta i led . These

ear ly indicat ions

of

i n t e res t

in

re l igion

on

Hume s

par t

are

confirmed by

Boswell.

In

his account of the

l as t

interview with Hume Boswell has

noted the dying phi losopher s own

confession

to a zealous

pract ice of re l ig ion

in

youth.

13


14/245

Hume s

in teres t in

the bel ief and the

pract ice

of re i i -

gion

seems

to

have

declined

in his

mature

years.

In

his

auto-

biographical

sketch, composed

short ly

before his

death,

Hume

s ignif icant ly enough, passed

over

the subject of personal

re l igious convictions without comment or

reference. This

may

perhaps

be

taken

as

an

indication of

a

se t t led

apathy

to

re l i -

gious

be l i e f For t might be argued tha t

a bel iever

of what-

ever

descrip t ion

would

hardly

fa i l

to

re fe r

to

his

convict ions,

i f he had

any, in

a

composition

tha t was

intended

to

be

his

l a s t

testament. The

negative character of

Hume s

views during

the closing years of his l i f e

is

also

borne

out

by Boswell s

account of

his l as t personal interview

with

the philosopher.

Boswell found

him re ject ing

immortality and expressing an

ant i -

pathy

to

re l igion

general ly.14

Thus, one

may

weIl

claim

tha t

with advancing years, ume carne

to lose

or

shed

his

ear l i e r

be l i e fs However t

is noteworthy

tha t

since

the

circumstances

tha t led to the

transformation

are

not

ful ly documented, one s

reconstruction of them can

only

be in sorne

sense

conjectural .

Nevertheless,

t

might be helpful to seek an understanding of

th is

aspect of

Hume s

personal

background.

Two r ~ s o n s

are

of in i t i a l relevance in accounting for

the change in Hume s

be l ie f s

The

f i r s t

one amongst them may


15/245

10

appropr ia te ly

be termed

i n t e l l e c tua l .

Hume' s s tud ies and r e -

f l ec t io n s could have served

to

undermine, and in due course

whi t t l e

away,

h i s once

he ld convic t ions .

His cont inued devo-

h

f

15 h l h d l

t ~ o n on ~ s own con e s s ~ o n was to p

osop

y an genera

l ea rn ing . The a t t r ac t i o n was

to

secu la r , not theo log ica l

16

17

wri t ings .

Boswel l ' s

account t r aces the l oss

o f

b e l i e f to

a

sp ec i f i e cause: Hume's perusal of Locke

and

Clarke . That

however

could weIl

be a

dramat ic

over s impl i f i ca t ion o f an

ex-

tended

process in which

the pe rusa l o f

t hese

authors

was per -

haps an impor tant

cont r ibu tory

element . I f one

poss ib le

reason

for Hume's estrangement from re l ig ion thus appears to have

stemmed from the

opera t ion

o f in terna l

f a c t o r s , then

the

othe r , s ig n i f i can t ly enough,

had i t s source in external fac-

t o r s .

Calv in i s t

Ch r i s t i an i ty

which

preva i led in the Scot t i sh

environment

o f

Hume's

youth has been

widely

r ep resen ted

as

a

gr im and

cheer less

forro of r e l i g io n .

Greig

18

charac te r izes

the

Calv in i s t creed as a narrow and

l ega l i s t i c

one, common-

place a t i t s b es t and r epu ls ive a t i t s wors t .

Kemp Smith

and

19

Mossner

have

also expressed s imi la r opinions

as to the gloomy

s t r i c t n es s

o f t h i s

forro o f Ch r i s t i an i ty

in the dawning

decades

o f the e igh teen th century. The t enor of i t s t each ings and

the

import

of i t s prac t i ces are ap t ly

de ta i l ed

by the

Church

h i s -

20

t o r i an ,

J .A.

C:unpbell.

Calvinism, according to t h i s


16/245

I l

author i ty, depicted God as an implacable despot,

swift

to

wrath

I t

he Id

by

the

doctrines of e lec t ion

and reproba-

t ion in a I l

the i r

severi ty

Both in

church

and

in

home

the

most re lent less discipl ine

was

maintained. The ob-

servance of the Sabbath was

enforced

with pena l t ies . Thus,

once the unsavoury features of Hume's ear ly

rel igious

milieu

are recognized, the

presumption

tha t

he

revolted

or

reacted

against t in

l a te r

years becomes highly

Plausible.

21

Super-

s t i t ion and enthusiasm the so-cal led twin

forms

of false

re l ig ion

against

which ume repeatedly fulminated

through h is

~ r i o u s writ ings may surely be descried in cer ta in features of

the

r e l i ~ i o n

pract i sed

in the early eighteenth century Scot-

land.

The erosion

of be l ie f

in

Hume's

case

then was

perhaps

not

simply brought about by a scept ical turn of thought fol-

22

lowing upon

his

studies

and ref lec t ions . Greig

assigns a

s ign i f i can t

place to the foregoing factor in accounting for

Hume's antipathy to re l ig ion . According

to

th is biographer,

the

harsher aspects of

Scot t ish

Calvinism experienced in his

youth l e f t i t s mark on

the

philosopher as a strong

emotional

resentment. This he

carr ied

in to

his

mature l i f e as

an

un-

resolved host i l i ty or a complex. Greig 's

claims

are

of

course

in the nature of a reconstruction and as such

are

in

the f inal analysis , conjectural . However, while the exact


17/245

12

t ruth is hardly at ta inable

in these matters, t

is indeed pos-

s ib le to suspect a connection of

sorbs

between the pecul iar-

i t i e s of Hume's ear ly re l igious milieu and his

l a t e r

hos-

t i l i t y to

re l igion

such as is manifest in his wri t ings. For

th is host i l i ty , as several

c r i t i c s

have

noted, often

outsteps

the

bounds of reasoned disagreement such as is permissible in

l

h

h 23

earned p ~ l o s o p ~ c a l debate.

I t has an acerbi ty, which,

though sometimes

masked,

nevertheless betrays an animus.

24

And

tha t ch aracter is t ic apparently was

not

merely the outgrowth of

a freethinking

temper, but ra ther

stemmed from sorne

features

of

Hume's early

re l igious background. AlI n a I l ,

the negative

features of

Hume's

re l igious

standpoint may thus

be

viewed

against two

pert inent

contexts. The f i r s t

of these

is of

course

the scept ical outlook

tha t

was

nurtured

by his own

reading

and ref lec t ion .

The

second, in terms

of

the reasoning

advanced

in the

foregoing paragraphs

may

weIl be character-

th b 5 h

~ z e d

as e resu l t of an ~ n f l u e n c e y r e a c t ~ o n

to

t e

Scot t ish

Calvinism

of

the eighteenth

century.

Hume

was frequently suspected

of

heresy

during

his

adul t

l i fe , and sorne

of

his

contemporaries denounced

him

as

an inf ide l

and

an

atheis t . Such

insinuations came

to

the fore

especia l ly

when he

offered hirnself as

an

applicant for teaching


18/245

13

posi t ions in

the univers i t ies

of Edinburgh and Glasgow.

I t

i s

noteworthy tha t

in

both instances conservative

cler ica l

opposit ion prevailed,

and

the

philosopher 's academic ambi-

t ions

were

thwarted. In the

controversies

tha t ensued the

announcement

of Hume's

candidacy,

the allegedly

IIheretical

implications

of

the

Treat ise

were par t icu lar ly prominent.

26

Charges

of

a more serious

nature

came up during the years

1755 to

1756.

In the course of tha t period, the General

As-

sembly of

the

Church of

Scotland

considered the

p

r inciples

subservice of re l ig ion and morality

such as

were supposed

to

be implic i t

in Hume's writ ings, and even debated the des i r -

b

l t f h 27 Th h h f

J J Y

0

excommunJ catJ ng J m oug t e J.nterventJ.on

0

the

moderate fac t ion within

the Church

i t s e l f

helped to stave

of f f inal action in th is matter, the inc ident serves to i l lus -

t ra te c lear ly

Hume's

posi t ion vis--vis

the or thodox

Chris-

t i an i ty

of

his

milieu.

In

recognising

the

foregoing fac ts , it is also impor-

t an t to note

however,

tha t there

i s no for thr ight

profession

of atheism by Hume

in any

of h is

writ ings.

On

the contrary,

his

rel ig ious

as

weIl

as

his

other

writings

abound

with

def i -

8

n i te avowals

of bel ief

in God.

His

au

tobiographical

sketch,

( i t

might

be argued), is af ter a I l only

r e t i cen t

on

the

matter


19/245

14

of re l ig ious

convict ions;

t

affords

no evidence of

atheism.

Moreover, even Boswell 's

account only

records

Hume's

negative

a t t i tudes towards re l ig ion

and

immortality;

t

does not re fe r

to the spec i f ie

issue

o f theism. Could ume

then

be credi ted

with spme form o f t he i s t i c bel ief , even in a tenuous

sense?

A considered answer to t h i s important question must be based

upon a careful

examination of

his wri t ings such

as

wil l be

attempted

in

the

various

chapters of

th i s d i sse r ta t ion tha t

are

to

fol low. Nevertheless, t would be

weIl

to note

here

tha t in view of the facts

of

his background

already

referred

to,

t

s indeed di f f icu l t to

cred i t

ume with any

recog-

nisable species of Chris t ian fa i th . In hi s

extended

personal

29

correspondence, in which

many

matters

o f

int imate

concern

were

ai red ,

ume

gave

no

indicat ion of a profess ion of Chris-

t i an i ty , o r

indeed

of a subscrip t ion

to

any amended

form

of

theism.

Even

among his congenial

fr iends ,

the liberal-rninded,

moderate

clergy of Scotland, (with whom ume maintained close

re la t ionships ,

he hardly t r i ed

to

discuss

h is

re l ig ious

convic-

t ions . On

the

contrary, he seems to have considered re l ig ion

as

a topic of discord,

(owing,

presumably,

to

hi s

strong

se t -

t l ed negative opinions),

and

to have avoided discussing t

a l -

30

together .

In

terms o f the evidence adduced so far , t seems

fa i r then

to

consider

ume

as

essent ia l ly

a man of negative


20/245

15

rel ig ious

convictions.

e was not an atheis t His posi t ion

on God in re la t ion

to

his own convictions was

perhaps similar

to

nineteenth century agnosticism.

3l

However, in philosoph-

i ca l discussion he seems

to

have

veered

towards the

admission

of

a

l imited, at tenuated type of

theism.

3

I t

is

weIl nigh

impossible to determine

whether

the lIattenuated theism

that

emerges

out

of his

philosophical

discussion had any roots in

Hume's personal convictions. A review of

the

available facts

of

his personal background

seems to

suggest

tha t

he

was

essen-

t i a l l y a person of secular outlook, beref t of any

durable

r e l i -

gious sentiments.

2.

Philosophical Background.

ume

occupies

a

dis t inct ive place within the

Bri t i sh

philosophical t rad i t ion The philosophical standpoint with

which

he is widely associated

was

f i r s t promulgated in

his

Treatise which was published in 1739.

In

tha t work, ume en-

deavoured to se t

forth

a new

approach to

philosophy. He

claimed that his method was based upon lIexperience and observa-

tion,II

33

and admitted percept ion as the primary source

of

knowl-

edge. The central

features of

th is rnethod are

indeed worth

noting. Perceptions, (the primary source of

knowledge),

were


21/245

16

sa i d

to r e so lve

themselves in to two

d i s t i n c t kinds :

v i z . im-

press ions

and

i deas .

34

Impressions were charac te r ized by

the

grea te r

force

and

l i v e l in es s with

which

they presen ted

them-

se lves

to the mind. Ideas were markedly d ef i c i en t i n

those

q u a l i t i e s , and were weaker

percep t ions .

Impress ions ,

more-

over,

enjoyed a pos i t i on

o f

p r i o r i t y over

ideas : t h a t i s ,

the l a t t e r were der ived from impress ions .

Both

impress ions

as weIl as ideas admit ted of d iv i s ion as

simple

or complex.

Complex impressions

were formed from

the

aggrega t ion

of simple

impress ions . The

sarne

he ld t rue

o f

ideas .

35

Hume conceived

the

working

out o f

t h ~ d e t a i l s and

the

impl icat ions

of the fo re -

going

epis temological scheme

as

the

es sen t i a l

t a sk

of

the new

science of

man which

he sought to

br ing

to l i r e .

36

AlI

branches of learning, according

to

him,

were r e l a t ed

to

the

37

sc ience

of

man. Hence, the

place

ass igned to t was fun-

damenta l . Hume he ld t h a t improvements in

the

science o f man

n e c e ~ s a r i l y involved a grea te r knowledge of the operat ions of

the human understanding and

tha t

such improvements

were

s i g n i f -

i c a n t l y

re levan t for a I l i n q u i r i e s . He s t re ssed t h a t t h i s was

l l d l 38

p a r t ~ c u

a r

y so

w ~ t h

regar to na tura l

r e

~ g ~ o n

ow t seems na tura l

to

suppose

t h a t

Hume's

re l ig ious

views

were based upon

and

r e f l ec t ed h i s phi losophical


22/245

17

standpoint . s i s perhaps apparent from the foregoing c la r i -

f ica t ions

ume

himself seems to have suggested sorne such

r e la -

t ion . However, the moot

point

is as to whether tha t

re la t ion

is a

d i rec t and

continuing

one. Did

Hume

in

other words,

con-

c ious ly

apply his philosophical principles to his re l igious

thought

so as to bring

the l a t t e r

into

harmony with his

basic

epistemological scheme?

The

opinions

of wri ters

who

have

in

sorne

sense addressed

themselves

to

th is

problem

seem

to

indi-

cate

a considerable

divergence.

Thus, Lesl ie

Stephen was

incl ined to bel ieve

tha t Hume's di f fe rent works

on

episte-

mology and re l ig ion were character ised by a def in i te uni ty

of

thought . e noted

tha t from

his various

wri t ings, the Treat ise

of

Human Nature, the Dialogues

Concerning

Natural Religion, the

Philosophical

Essays

and

the

Natural

History

of

Religion,

we

may

frame

a

complete

and logical ly coordinated system of argu

ment.,,39 This seems to

imply

tha t

the

same basic pr inciples

of

philosophy

are

di l igent ly ca rr ied over from

one work

to

another. However, the view

advanced

by Stephen

is

a t

odds

with

the judgement of more

recent,

and perhaps more meticulous

. lb . 40 d 41 h .

s c h o l a r s h ~ p .

Thus,

Se

y B ~ g g e

an Passmore

ave

g ~ v e n

4

much prominence to the inconsistencies in Hume's

writ ings.

The

prevalence

of such inconsistencies

would appear to undermine

Stephen's

in te rpre ta t ion of the

relat ionship

between Hume's


23/245

18

philosophical

and rel ig ious

works.

Moreover, the

remarks of

Stephen's contemporary,

T.H.

Huxley, are particu:l.arly in teres t -

ing

in

th is context because

of a

contrary stand

which they

suggest .

As regards the central issue of

re l igion,

namely

theism, Huxley did not see a def in i te connecting l ink

in

Hume's successive works. He noted tha t i f we

turn

from the

Natural

History of Religion,

to

the

Treat ise , the Enquiry

and

the

Dialogues,

the s tory

of

what happened

to

the ass laden

with

sa l t , who

took to the water i r re s i s t ib ly

suggests

i t s e l f .

I43

I t

i s indeed

di f f icu l t

to

maintain tha t

Hume's

various writings

on

rel ig ion

exemplify

a forthright and s t r ingent application

of

h i s philosophical pr inc ip les . Those writ ings, (and Hume's

rel ig ious views

generally) ,

were undeniably

informed or in -

fluenced by his

philosophical

tenets . But

the presence of

a

direct

l ink

between

his

philosophical and rel ig ious views i s

not

an impression tha t i s

immediately

generated by a

perusal of

his

works on re l ig ion . Sorley

was perhaps r ight

when he

remarked

tha t

Hume,

in h is

treatment

of

concrete

problems,

came

to apply his

philosophical

principles in an emasculated

44

form. For,

the terminology of

l impressions l and l

ideas,

l so

centra l to

his

theory

of

knowledge,

hardly enters into the dis -

cussion in any

of

Hume s y,,orks on re l ig ion . What

one

encounters

. .

45

in them a t

most

a loose appeal to e x p e r ~ e n c e

This of


24/245

19

course is in rnarked

contrast

to the way in

which

tha t terrni-

nology

i s

applied

in

other

areas

of his inquiry, l ike tha t of

ethics

for instance.

I t i s

s igni f icant tha t both A.H.

Basson

46

and

B.M.

Laing

in

the i r studies on

Hurne s thought

were

incl ined to disregard the existence of a direct connection be-

tween Hurne s episternological

and rel igious views. In

discuss-

ing

the Dialogues,

A.H. Basson

has

noted tha t

the

most

in te r

est ing

feature

of

Hurne s treatrnent

of

re l ig ion was the

aban-

donrnent of

his usual analyt ical rnethod. And in comnenting on

the NER B.M. Laing has discounted the

poss b i l i ty tha t

the

author s airn

in

tha t work was to t r ea t re l ig ion by applying the

consequences

of

his

theory

of knowledge to it

The foregoing

observat ions point

to

a

reluctance

on

the

par t

of

several scholars to approach Hume s r l i g i o ~ s

thought sirnply through

his

philosophical pr inc ip les .

As has

been

already suggested, the

direct

applicat ion

of his philo-

sophical

pr inc ip les

to his

re l igious thought

is not an over t

feature

of Hurne s actual

procedure.

The

re la t ionship

between

these

two aspects

of

his ref lect ions

appears

to

be

rather corn-

plex and variable . The scholar ly opinions thus

far

ci ted

tend

to

lend

support

to th is stand. In view

of

these consider-

at ions ,

it

would

be

foolhardy to

atternpt

an overal l

account of


25/245

20

the relat ionship between Hume s philosophical and re l igious

views

a t this s tage.

This

disserta t ion

as whole,

in

i t s

various

chapters, shal l be addressing i t s e l f to the c la r i f i ca -

t ion

of

tha t i ssue .

3. Historical Background.

Hume s philosophical

contribution

to the theory of

knowledge

is

undeniably

re la ted in broad his tor ica l sense,

to the para l l e l contributions of

his

predecessors

in

the

Brit ish empirical

t rad i t ion namely John Locke and George

Berkeley. However, t is

important

to note tha t these two

thinkers do

not stand

simi lar ly

related to Hume s

re l igious

thought.

ow due to

the

great

s ignif icance

of Hume s epi s-

temological invest igat ions, the h is to r ica l

background

to t

has also

tended

to receive

prominence

in manner

suggestive

of

i t s val id i ty to a I l

areas of

Hume s work. But this dis-

to r t s the rea l s t a t e of af fa i rs and can hardly be accepted.

47

For

the proper background to

Hume s

rel igious views is

offered

by

the complex

strands of

thought re la t ing to

natural r e l i -

gion and deism tha t const i tuted an absorbing controversy in

eighteenth century Bri ta in . I t i s

mainly against th is

back-

ground tha t Hume s

rel igious

writ ings receive the i r wider

meaning and

signi f icance.


26/245

21

The

great

relevance of the his tor ica l se t t ing in which

systems

of ide

as

were

formulated,

and

the

atmosphere

in

which they were sustained, to

the

invest igat ion of those

ideas themselves

may

hardly be

gainsaid. The eighteenth

century in which ume l ived and wrote

was

the Age

of

the

Enlightenment. The welter of

ide

as and

socia l forces

which

enveloped

him

had a l l

the markings

of

what

has

subsequently

to

b k d

48

e nown

as

mo

ern1ty.

The

in te l lec tual preoccupations of

tha t age tended, character is t ica l ly enough, to

centre

around

sorne cardinal concepts.

Perhaps

.the

most noteworthy

amongst

these

were

nature,

l IIreason, l

sentiment,

l IIhumanit

y

and

II

pe

rfect ibi l i ty .1I

49

A constant

appeal

was made by wri ters in

the

eighteenth century to such

concepts.

That century 's con-

t r ibut ions

to

the

domains of l i t e ra tu re philosophy,

pol i t ics

as

well

as

re l igion

offer much evidence to a t te s t tha t facto

A posi t ion

of

preeminence was occupied by two

of

those con-

cepts : viz nature l and IIreason. l In his philosophical as

well as

re l igious thought, ume made a conscious and laboured

attempt to

al ign

himself on

the side of nature .

I

Signif-

icant ly

enough,

his two most important works on re l ig ion ( the

N R and

the Dialogues),

carry tha t

epi thet

in

the i r very

t i t l e s

thereby underl ining an unmistakable debt to the

sp i r i t of

the

age in

which they were wri t ten . Indeed the

term

nature had


27/245

22

Il

t d

b l f Il l b l 50

6 eS1ra e

connotat1ons

0

1nte

ectua accepta 1 1 ty .

Writers o f a I l persuas ions , Chr i s t i ans , d e i s t s as weIl

as

a t h e i s t s ,

sought

unfa i l ing ly

to

acknowledge

the au thor i ty of

n a tu re .

While Hume

ex t r ac ted the fu l l polemical advantages

which

the

concept o f

nature

tended

to

ca r ry in the eigh teen th

century in

favour

o f his own re l ig ious opin ions , he

sought

to

undermine the

p lace assigned

to reason in the

thought

of the

51

same cen tury .

It may

be worthwhile to r eca l l t h a t

Hume's

oppos i t ion to reason i s recur ren t

in

a I l h i s i n q u i r i e s . In

h i s

theory o f

knowledge

it wassubord ina ted to sensa t ion and

h ab i t ;

and

i n e th ic s

it

was

subordinated

to f ee l ing and s en t i -

ment. The same a t t i t u d e

was woven i n to

the i n t e rp re t a t i o n o f

r e l i g i o n . Hume's

two

major

works on

r e l i g io n exemplify t h i s .

The

N R

t r aced the or ig ins of r e l i g io n

to the

fee l ings o f f ea r .

In

the

Dialogues , a famous r a t i o n a l argument

for

t he i sm- - the

argument from

design--was shown to be var ious ly con tes tab le ,

and f i n a l l y of l imi ted v a l i d i t y as a

proof

of theism. AlI in

a I l ,

Hume's

re l ig ious views may be sa id

to

express a p a r t i a l i t y

towards nature

and a h o s t i l i t y towards

reason .

1I

To

t h a t ex-

t en t ,

they

appear to

r e f l e c t the

out look and

the

a t t i t u d es o f

the

age .

The concepts o f

nature and

reason a l so had an

important

p lace in the d e i s t i c cont roversy o f the e igh teen th

cen tury .

Hume's i n t e r e s t in the

l i t e ra tu re

of t h a t

controversy


28/245

23

52

has been represented as a long and continuing one. AlI

his

major

contributions

to

the subject of

re l igion

had

a

sure

. . f .

t t

th t d 5

3

s ~ g n ~ ~ c a n c e 0

e ~ g een cen

ury e ~ s m

In view

of

these

facts , it would be worthwhile to observe br ief ly the

sa l ien t

54

features of

tha t controversy and

to

note

i t s

'connection

to

Hume's

rel igious

ref lec t ions .

English de is t s

of

the eighteenth century were

generally

inclined to

acknowledge

Lord Herbert

of Cherbury,

(1583-1648)

as

the

father of deism. Herbert 's principles , enunciated in

his

De Veritate (1645),

involved

the acceptance of a Supreme

God, of the

necessity

of

worship in

the

form

of

vi r tue and

piety , of repentence

for sins

and of divine jus t ice and judge-

ment.

These t ru ths Herbert

claimed,

were

common to aI l man-

kind, and were accessible

to

natural reason.

The proponents of

natural

re l igion in

the eighteenth century

drew

the i r inspira-

t ion from

the

foregoing

t ene ts .

The

concept

of a

re l igion

of

nature, universal

in i t s manifestat ions

and

accessible

to

reason was thus brought in to prominence and developed by a suc-

cession of deis t ic

wri te rs .

Foremost among these were

John

Teland (1670-1722), Anthony Collins

(1676-1729 ) and Matthew

Tindal (1657-1733). AlI of them had reached the i r maturity

during

Hume's youth

and, as has already

been noted, there is


29/245

24

reason to believe tha t

ume was acquainted with

the i r wri t ings .

In

any

case,

Hume's

own

works

on

re l igion

had

a

def in i te

bear-

ing on

deism.

Through those works

he

challenged the deis t ic

opinions. The N R for instance

offered

a

di f fe rent view of

the

origin of

re l ig ion in human nature

to tha t

propounded by

the deis t s .

And

the Dialogues subjected

the

favourite deis t ic

argument

for

theism,

the argument from design,

to

a

searching

cr i t i c i sm.

55

Hence,

Hume's

contributions to

re l igion

have

come

to be

viewed

as

an at tack on eighteenth century

deism.

56

Since Hume's

rel ig ious works were undoubtedly

contro-

57

vers ia l

and were widely reputed

to

be heret ica l

t

would

be

worthwhile to remember tha t

tolerance

which exis ted in

eighteenth

century Bri ta in

had def in i te l imi ts . Dissent or

cr i t ic i sm in

matters

of re l ig ion

of ten faced

serious of f ic ia l

or cler ica l opposition u r l ~ tha t

century.

Hence, most

heterodox wri ters

of the time sought to present the i r

views in

disguised forms. Mossner has

characterized

th i s s i tua t ion as

a matter

of signif icance for consideration

by

students of the

d

1 58

e l s t l c

wrltlngs

ln part lcu are

For

the

heterodox writers

were driven to adopt

a

host of evasive techniques

which

were

aimed

a t

circumventing charges

of

blasphemy

and the consequent

penal t ies . Mossner's tabula t ion of these evasive techniques


30/245

25

inc luded i rony r a i l l e r y , f i c t i t i o u s

ana logies ,

use

of the

dia logue

and

e p i s t o l a t o r y forms, cla ims to be C hr i s t i a n d e i s t s ,

pseudonimity ,

anonyrnity, e t c . t i s

i n t e r e s t i ng

to

no te

t h a t

t hese devices

of

e v ~ i o n are apparent in Hume t oo . A suc-

cess ion o f

c r i t i c s have a t t e s t e d to

the ex i s t ence o f

i rony in

, 59 .

ume s

wr1t1ngs .

In

sorne

1ns tances , he a l so

used f1ct1t10us

l

. .

60

ana og1es

to cover

h1S

a t tacks

on re l1g1on.

He employed

t he dia logue form

with notab le success in

h i s d i scuss ion

of

t he i s sue of

the ism. Hume

never at tacked

Chr i s t i a n i t y

d i r e c t l y

and

openly .

In

f ac t , t he most

damaging aspects

of

c r i t i q u e of

r e l i g i on were always presented

amidst pious

pro fess ions

o f

b e l i e f .

61

Many o f

wri t ings were

a l so

publ ished

62

anonyrnously. And he

mainta ined

a pseudonimity

of

so r t s

in

d iscuss ing the

v i t a l

i s sues o f r e l i g i on

by employing

63

f i c t i t i o u s spokesmen to

propound

his views.

Thus,

the re

could be little d i spu te as regards

the

f ac t t h a t Hume

observed

the

conven t ions

o f

h i s

age,

and

covered h i s doubts and a t -

64

tacks

on

r e l i g i on with

sorne

semblance

of conformity .

Hume's spec ious pro fess ions

o f

b e l i e f indeed tended

to

v e i l

h i s

ac tua l

views.

But such

pro fess ions ,

as

Anton

Thomsen

65

has r i g h t l y i nd ica ted ,

were

addi t ions commanded by

t ime

and

c ircumstances . An apprec ia t ion

of

t h i s aspec t o f Hume's back-

ground

i s

of

gr e a t

importance for

the i n t e r p r e t a t i on

of h i s


31/245

26

~ l i g i o u s wr i t i ngs . However, in terms of the

foregoing

c l a r i f i c a t i o n s

it could be argued t h a t

these express ions

of

conformi ty

do

no t r ep resen t Hume s

r e a l

views .

In

pro fess ing to be a be l iever or a defender of or thodox

t e ne t s

ume

was

only making a

formaI

and

p o l i t i c bow

to

t he es tab l i shed re l ig ion of

h i s

t ime .

66

Factors

stemming from

the

var ious aspec ts

o f

Hurne s

background are of much re levance to

an evaluat ion

o f h i s

re l ig ious views. Those views were

pa r t i c u l a r l y

in f luenced

by h i s own

nega t ive

convic t ions and

the

re l ig ious opin ions

o f

h i s

t ime . However,

an adequate understanding of

h i s

r e l i g i ous thought can

only

proceed from

an ac tua l

examinat ion

of h i s wr i t i ngs .

t

would

be

appropr ia te

then

a t th i s

poin t

to

turn to t h a t t a sk .


32/245

NOTES

TO

CHAPTER

I I

1 . Philosophy

and Biography:

The Case of David

Hume

(The Philosophical Review, Vol. LIX, 1950),

p .

184.

2 . Hume wrote only two ful l - length,

sustained

studies

on

rel igion,

viz . NHR (1757; original ly

designed as

a

const i tuent of the col lect ion of writings ent i t l ed

The

Four

Dissertat ions ) ; and the Dialogues 1779i

published posthumously.)

The

following

essays

are of

specif ic

rel ig ious

import:

Of

Superst i t ion

and

Enthusiasm

(1742);

Of

Suicide

(1783);

Of

the

Immortality

of the Soul

(1783)

3 . In

th is class

may be

included

Hume1s f i r s t

major

philosophical work, the Treat ise (1739), and the sub-

sequent EHU (1748), as weIl as the EMP (1751).

In

the Treat ise ,

among

others, the discussion on the

immaterial i ty of the

soul has a

part icular

bea:rng

on rel igion.

(Book I ,

Part

IV, Section v .

Similar ly ,

among

others, the

discussions

centering around miracles

and

part icular

providence

in

EHU

have

defini te

s ign i f

icance

to the

subject of the

present

disser ta t ion .

(Sec.tions

X and

XI)

4 . Among

the

few rare exceptions are the following

passing

references:

Bu'cler,

(in

the

introduction to

the Treatise, p. 6);,

Cudworth,

Newton, Locke

and

Clarke EHU,

Section VII,

Part I , p . 73, and also NHR,

p .

64, in a

footnote);

Til lotson,

EHU, Section X, p . 109). However, only

the

l a s t two

of these references have been

made in

the context of a discussion re la t ing

to

re l ig ion .

5 .

See,

Norman Kemp

Smith:

Hume IS Dialogues

Concerning

Natural

Religion, Introduction,

p .

1. Cf.

H.E. Root:

The Natural History of Religion,

Introduction,

pp. 16,

18.

27


33/245

28

6.

These r e la te mainly to Hume s

stand

on

the

exis tence

of God and the

a t t i tude

to

re l ig ion .

His wri t ings

seem

to

exemplify

expressions

o f

both

be l i e f

as

weIl

as

di sbe l i e f . Detai led considerat ion wil l be

given

to t h i s matter in the

subsequent

chapters of

th i s

disse r ta t ion .

7. y

Own Life , (wri t ten

in

1776; published

in 1777.)

8 See, E.C. Mossner: The Life

of

David Hume p .

34;

J . Laird:

Hume s Philosophy

of Human Nature, p .

282;

Henry

D.

Aiken:

Hume s Dialogues Concerning

Natural

Religion, Introduct ion, p .

v i i .

9 .

Let ters

Volume

l

pp.

12-18.

10.

See, Let te r

to

Henry

Home (1737), Let ters

Vol.

l

pp.

23-25.

I l .

E.C.

Mossner:

Hume s

Early Memoranda,

1739-1740

The

C o ~ p l e t e

Text.

Journal

of

the History

of Ideas,

1948, pp. 500-503.

12. Let te rs Vol. l

p .

154.

13. James

B o s w e l l ~ The Last Interview with Hume

(Reprinted

in

Norman Kemp

Smith:

r ia logues

Concerning

Reliqion, p . 76.)

14. Ib id .

15. y Own Life, p . 233 .

16. Ib id . p . 233.

17. Op. c i t . p . 76. See

a lso

E.C. Mossner:

The Life

of David Hume

p .

51.

18. J .Y.T.

G r e ~ g David Hume

pp. 36-43.

19. Norman Kemp Smith: op. c i t .

p .

3;

E.C.

Mossner: op. c i t . p .

33.


34/245

29

20.

Two

Centuries

of the Church

of Scot land,

p .

28.

21. J .Y.T.

Greig

has

t r ied

to reconst ruc t the rel ig ious

aspects

of Hume s early l i f e

on

t h i s ba s i s .

22.

Op.

c i t . , p .

81.

23. Cf.

Basil

Willey: The Eighteenth Century Background,

p . 133.

24. J.Y.T. Greig: op. c i t . , p . 82.

25.

Norman Kemp Smith:

op. c i t . ,

pp. 6-7.

26.

E .C. Mossner: The Life o f

David

Hume chapter

12.

27

Ib id . ,

chapter

25.

28. These however, as

the

sequel

wil l

endeavour to

show,

are la rge ly

formaI,

and offer

l i t t l e

evidence

of

Hume s actua l be l i e f s .

29.

Letters Ed. by

J .Y.T. Greig

(2 vol s . ) ;

ew

Let te rs . Ed.

by R.

Klibansky

and

E.C. Mossner.

30.

In

a

l e t t e r wri t ten in 1761,

Hume asked Hugh

Blai r ,

(a clergyman),

n o t ~ ~ i s e matters

re la t ing to Chr is

t i an i ty during

t he i r

conversa t ions .

Hume

he Id

that

he was

incapable of

ins t ruct ion .

See Let te rs , Vol. l ,

p .

351.

31. Cf. J .

Noxon: Hume s Agnosticism,

(Philosophical

Review, LXXIII, 1964).

32 .

This i s especial ly

suggested

in the Dialogues.

See Chapter

VII I

for an e labora t ion o f t h i s top ic .

33.

Treat i se ,

Vol. l , p s

34. Ib id . , p .

Il


35/245

30

35. Ib id . , pp. 11-16 fo r d e t a i l s o f the bas ic pr inc ip le s .

36.

Ib id . , p . 5 .

37. Ib id . , p .

4 .

38 Ib id . ,

pp.

4-5 .

39.

The

His tory

o f Engl ish

Thouqht

in the

Eighteenth

Century,

Vol. l ,

p . 311.

40.

Hume's Enguir ies , In t roduct ion, p .

v i i

41.

Hume'

s In tent ions ,

p . 1 .

42 . Selby-Bigge and

Passmore were

o f course

r e fe r r

ing to

the

genera l context

o f

Hume's wri t ings r a th e r than

the spec i f i c i s sue of the r e l a t ion between

h is

phi losophica l

and

re l ig ious

views. Never theless , the

lack of un i ty such as was noted by them

has

a de f in i t e

bear ing on

the

present d iscuss ion .

43. Hume, p . 173.

44. W.R. Sor ley :

His tory

o f Engl ish Philosophy, p . 180.

45.

Hume's

remarks on the

immate r ia l i ty

of the soul

(Treat i se , p a r t

IV,

sec t ion v) , which has a re levance

to re l ig ion , cons t i tu te a

noteworthy except ion.

How-

ever,

it occurs

in

a

context of

epis temological

discussion . His discuss ion of the r e l a t ed theme in

the essay, On

the

Immortal i ty

of

the Soul

is

l es s

dependent on

h is

epis temological pr inc ip le s .

46.

A.H. Basson: David Hume, p .

107.

B.M.

Laing: David Hume, p . 176.

47. To t r e a t

Hume's

phi losophy merely in

r e l a t ion

to

the

Engl ish empir ica l

t r ad i t ion ,

as M.S. Kuypers

has

noted, i s to t e l l very littl

about h i s

meaning for

h i s

own t ime or

any o ther .

(Studies in the Eighteenth

Century Background of

Hume's

Empiricism,

p .

v . )


36/245

31

48

Cf. E.C. Mossner: The

Li fe o f David Hume,

p .

3 .

49.

See,

Car l

L. Becker:

The

Heavenly

Ci ty o f

Eighteenth

Century

Philosophers, p .

47; also

B. Willey:

op

c i t .

50. Carl L. Becker: op. c i t . , p . 53.

51.

Cf .

G.R. Cragg: Reason

and Authori

ty in the

18th

Century,

p .

127.

52.

M.S. Kuypers: op.

c i t . , p .

10.

53. See E.C. Mossner: under

IIDeism

in Encyclopaedia

o f

Philosophy.

(Ed. by

Paul

Edwards.)

54.

For de ta i l s see ,

Lesl ie Stephen:

op.

c i t . ,

Vol. l ,

chapters

I I to IV.

55. And

i t s

conclusions in

e f fec t

chal lenged the

ra t iona l

bases of the

de i s t i c

assumptions a t

a

cruc ia l po in t .

56. Cf. B.M. Laing: op. c i t . , p .

176.

Richard

Falkenburgh: History

o f Modern Philosophy,

p . 228.

57

E

.C.

Mossner:

The

Life of

David

Hume,

Chapter 25.

58.

Deism

in

Encyclopaedia

of Phi losophy.

Ed. by

Paul Edwards.

59

.

B.A.O.

Will iams: Hume

on Rel ig ion in David

Hume,

A

Symposium. Ed. by

D.F. Pears ,

pp. 78-79.

Carl L. Becker: op. c i t . , p . 36.

G.R.

Cragg: op. c i t . , p .

137.

I .Stephen: op. c i t . , Vol.

l ,

pp. 313, 317.

60.

See

Trea t i se ,

Book

l ,

Sect ion

IV, Par t B.

Hume

l inked

the

orthodox

teachings

on

the

soul

with

Spinoza's monist ic

pr inc ip les . This

la rge ly

f i c t i t ious

analogy

cons t i tu ted

the

basis for Hume's

a t tack on the substant ia1 soul a t one

s tage .


37/245

32

61.

The

appropr ia te i d en t i f i ca t io n s and

references are

given in the var ious chapters t h a t discuss Humels

wr i t ings

in

th i s thes i s .

62. The Trea t i se and the f i r s t ed i t ions o f h i s essays

were

publ ished

anonymously. The l 8 th century

publ ica t ions

of the

essays on su ic ide and

immortal i ty

never

ca r r i ed

the

name

of

t h e i r

author .

63. This fea ture i s notab le in EHU

Sect ion

XI

and

in

the Dialogues.

64. See, B.A.O.

Williams, in

op. c i t . ,

ed.

by

D.F.

Pears) ,

p .

78.

65. David Humels

Natural

History of

Rel ig ion in

Monist ,

Vol.

XIX, 1909 ,

p .

269.

66. See, Anton Thomsen: op.

c i t . ,

pp. 274-276.

This

wri te r

has r i g h t l y noted t h a t Humels

contemporaries never

mistook the heterodox impl ica

t ions

of

h i s

opinions .

Throughout

the

eigh teen th

century Hume was

regarded

as an i n f i d e l .


38/245

CH PTER

I I I

A TRE TISE OF HUM N

N TURE

The

basic

pr inciples of

Humels philosophy were

enunciated

in

his

f i r s t

work, A Treat ise of Human Nature.

I t was

published

in 1739, and evoked l i t t l e

immediate

in te r -

es t Hume

1

s

main

aim in tha t

work

was to examine the complex

operat ions of the human mind.

2

He l ikened his approach

in

the

3

T r e a t ~ s e to

tha t of

an a n a t o m ~ s t

and t rue to form, t r ~ e d

to

dissect or analyse

the various

philosophical

questions

tha t

fe l l

with in i t s

range.

Hume 1 s invest igat ions

were

system-

at ica l ly extended to

the

realms of the understanding, passions

and morals. And the

most

s igni f icant aspect

of

his conclu-

sions re la ted to. the theory of knowledge.

The

Treat ise ,

then

was

not

a

work

on

re l ig ion

However, t must

be noted

tha t

rel igious considerat ions and rel igious issues were

not

to ta l ly

excluded

from

i t i

4

on the contrary,

they were

ra ised a t

33


39/245

34

various levels and

were

a t

certa in

points drawn into

his

gen-

era l discussion

there . Thus, though re l igion

was seemingly

remote from

the

centra l concerns of the Treat ise ,

re l igious

views

of

considerable

s ignif icance

were nevertheless actual ly

elaborated in it

Consequently, it

would be re levant for

purposes

of

the

present

disserta t ion

to

examine those views

by

following the

appropriate stages of Hume s discussion.

Religion engaged Hume s at tent ion a t

the very

outse t

of

his invest igat ions

in the

Treat ise . He observed

tha t r e l i -

gious inqui r ies involved

the use

of

manls

mental facul t ies .

A

proper acquaintance with

the

operatio ns of those facul t ies

he suggested, would fac i l i ta te the improvement

of re l igious

knowledge.

However, the

actual

elaboration

of

Hume s

epistemological theory, which engaged his

at tent ion

in the

body

of the work, did not include

a systematic

examination

of the

foundations

of

re l igious not ions .

6

Nevertheless, his

general views on

hum

an knowledge had

sorne

noteworthy

implica-

t ions for

re l igion;

and

they were frequently i l lus t ra ted by

appropriate re l igious references. Moreover,

speci f ie

r e l i -

gious

concepts, especia l ly those of

God

and the soul, at t racted

his

at tent ion

a t

certa in

points in

his

discussion.

The

sequel

attempts

to

consider Hume s

views

on

these

matters .


40/245

35

Religious

theoris ts

have often

t r ied to

speculate

on

the

ul t imate

aspects

of human nature . Hume, s igni f icant ly enough,

dissociated

himself

from a I l such

inquir ies

in

the

Trea t i se .

He

did

not

pretend

to

explain the

original

qua l i t ies

of human

nature ;

7

or to

give an

account of

the ul t imate

causes

of

. 8

mental actl.ons . e

also

observed

tha t the ult imate causes

of

the

impressions of sense,

i . e . , the

sources

of knowledge),

were ra t ional ly inexpl icable . He found

t impossible

to

decide

with

cer ta in ty whether they arose from mind,

matter

or

were derived from the Author of

our

being .9 ume was

indeed

prepared to allow tha t both material and immaterial objects

may have qual i t ies inaccessible to the mind. But such unknown

qual i t ies ,

in his view,

offered

no

basis

for s igni f icant

10

knowledge.

These

considerat ions

led

him to confine his

at tent ion

to the sensible appearances of objects

rather

than

the i r rea l nature

or

operat ions .

ll

Inquir ies

which proceeded

beyond

appearances

were f ru i t less ,

for

they only yielded

scepticism and uncer ta inty. ume held

tha t

a fa i r

confession

of ignorance

on a I l matters

tha t transcended

sense perception

was

jus t

and

proper.

12

The

foregoing

views were

appropriately

reflected in what

were perhaps his f inal

submissions on

ques-

t ions of ult imate

knowledge.

Where am l ,

or what? ume

asked,

from what

causes

do l derive my existence, and to what


41/245

36

condit ion shal l

l return? Whose favour

shal l

l court and

whose

anger

must

l

dread?

What

beings

surround

me?

and on

whom have

l any

influence

or who

have

any

influence

on me?

l am

confounded

with

these questions

and begin to fancy my-

se l f

in the most deplorable condit ion imaginable environed

by the deepest darkness and u t t e r ly deprived of the use of

every member

and faculty.1I13

The

ult imate

quest ions which

ume raised

are

clear ly centra l

to

re l ig ion .

However

his

philosophical

system s ignif icant ly enough

was not capable

of

coping with them. Sceptical tendencies were prominent in

Humels philosophical

approach.

And t is indeed noteworthy

tha t he was inc l ined to favour

a scept ical

outlook.

14

Though

ume endeavoured to avoid lIultimate

l

explana-

t ions he challenged many conventional

attempts

a t graft ing

such explanat ions onto philosophical discussion. For

instance

he was quite

opposed

to the t rad i t ional

atternpts a t

appealing

to

God as the guarantor of t ru th

or norms.

Hence

c r i t i ca l

and

negat ive

statements

l5

re la t ing to the

sta tus

and the

role

of

God

are indeed

found in a var ie ty

of contexts in the

Trea t i se . Many

of

ume s the is t ic

references

were made in

passing

and

were therefore

necessar i ly

br ie f . Nevertheless

the i r implications for philosophical theology are considerable;


42/245

37

and

in

any

case, they are also worthy of note

as

clues to

his

re l igious

views. ume questioned the legitimacy of

invoking

God as an explanatory

hypothesis

in sorne areas

of

thought .

Thus,

in

his discussion re la t ing to

mathematics

and

space,

he was not prepared to

enter

ta in the supposi t ion that the

Deity could form

a perfect

geometr ical

f igure . He found an

appeal beyond the senses and the imagination

in

tha t instance

16

absurde

Similarly, he c r i t i c i sed and

re jected

the Cartesian

attempt

to

explain

the ultimate power

and

efficacy of

matter,

(which

the

Cartesians

sa id

was unknowable), in

terms

of

an

original impulsion

of

the

prime mover or

the

Deity.17

Accord-

ing

to

Hume the ult imate

power or

efficacy residing

in

God

was as much unknowable as tha t residing in matter . Hence,

the

supposi t ion

tha t

the Deity

functioned

as

the

source

of

power in matter,

he claimed,

was

baseless

and indefensible.

For the idea of a Deity, l ike any

other

idea, must be derived

from

an impression; and

i f

no

impression ei ther of sensation

or re f lec t ion implies any efficacy, t i s equally

impossible

to discover or even imagine any

such

act ive principle in the

. 18

D e ~ t y .

AlI

in

aI l

ume

s tated

tha t

the

imperfections

in

our

ideas

of mind l.nd

matter

19

also extended our

ideas

of the

Deity. However, in an apparent attempt to

soften

the heterodox

suggestions of

his thinking

a t

th i s point ,

he

observed tha t

our


43/245

38

inabi l i ty to form a

dis t inc t

idea

of

the

Supreme

Being

can

have no ef fect on e i ther re l ig ion

or

morals .

This was

so,

according

to him, because the order

of

the universe

proved

t t d 20

an

o m n ~ p o en

m ~ n

The doctrines

of

the Treat ise tended, s ignif icant ly

enough,

to undermine the bases

of

two

t rad i t ional

proofs

for

theism--the

ontological

argument and the cosmological argu-

21

ment.

ume himself suggested

the impact of

his

phi los-

ophical views on the

ontological argument. That

argument,

t

might be

pert inent

to recal l , was

founded

on the

thes i s

tha t

the concept of

God,

(or the most

perfect

being),

logica l ly

implied his existence.

ume

s cr i t ic i sm proceeded from a

considerat ion of the

term Il

existence . He

contended tha t

existence was

not

conceived by a par t icu lar idea

which

could

be

joined to

the

ideas of

God's other

qual i t ies

(or perfec-

t ions) . Existence,

th en , was not a

separate and dis t ingui sh-

able idea

Consequently, he claimed

tha t when l

th ink of

God, when l

think of

him as existent , when l bel ieve him to

be

t t d f h t h d h

22

e x ~ s en ,

my

ea 0 ~ m n e ~ er ~ n c r e s e s nor ~ m ~ n ~ s es .

Thus, the supposit ion

tha t

the

ontological

argument

proved

existence as a qua l i ty logica l ly

involved in the

concept

of

God was negated by Hume's submissions. Likewise, he challenged


44/245

39

the cosmological

argument

with

h i s

account of causa t ion .

23

This t r ad i t i o n a l proof

for the ism t r aced

t he e f f i cacy of

causa l

connections

in

the world to a f i r s t cause , or

God.

But

fol lowing

h i s

analys is

of causa l connec t ions , Hume observed

t h a t

the ef f icacy or the energy of causes did no t stem from

t he

Dei ty .

He argued t h a t the e f f i cacy

or

energy

o f

causes

i s

ne i the r

placed in the causes themselves, nor

in t he Deity ,

nor in the concurrence of these two p r i n c i p l e s ~ bu t belongs

en t i r e l y

to the

soul ,

which

considers

the union o f

two or

more

objec t s in a I l pas t ins t ances .

t

i s here t h a t r ea l power o f

causes i s

placed ,

along with t h e i r connec t ion o r necess i ty . , ,24

Hume,

it must

be noted ,

denied

the no t ion o f

necessary

cause .

2

l d

l

f f l

, 1 f 26 h

He p ace a

orrns

0 causa ~ t y on a

s ~ m ~

a r o o t ~ n g T u s ,

even e f f i c i en t c a usa l i t y , which has

of ten

been

employed to ex-

p l a i n Godls c rea t ive

ac t ions

in

phi losophica l

theology) was

brought under h i s general ana lys i s , the reby depr iv ing

it

of

i t s customary e xp l i c a t i ve value

in

r e l i g i ous thought .

Hume made

sorne

general comments on

severa l aspects of

r e l i g i on i n

the

T r e a t i s e .

The

examinat ion

o f

t he

foundations

o f b e l i e f in p ar t i cu l a r , was the occas ion for a v ar i e ty of

such

comments. Bel ie f or fa i th}27 p lays

an impor tan t p a r t in

. r e l i g io n .

This impor tance

i s of ten r e f l ec t ed

in t he

mat ter o f


45/245

40

discover ing

as weIl as sus ta in ing re l ig ious t r u t h s . In

e lab-

ora t ing h i s

theory

of

b e l i e f ,

Hume

was

perhaps mindful

o f

t h a t

facto

For he sought

to c l a r i f y

sorne aspec ts

of

h i s views

with

r e fe rence to b e l i e f as it opera ted in r e l i g io n . Before pass ing

on to

a review

of

such r e fe rences , it

would

be

r e levan t to

note t he

main f ea tures o f Hume

' s i n t e rpre ta t ion

of b e l i e f . He

def ined b e l i e f as a l i v e ly idea

r e l a t e d

to , or assoc ia t ed with

a

presen t

impress ion .

28

Bel ie f

then

was

not

founded

on

re soni

it was

determined

by the pr inc ip l e s of assoc ia t ion or connec-

29

t i on t h a t opera ted in

the

realm

of

thought .

What was

pe c u l i a r

to

b e l i e f was the manner

of

conce iv ing

an

idea .

F ic t ions or fancies o f the imaginat ion were not d i f fe ren t from

b e l i e f in r e spec t o f t h e i r na ture . The

di f f e r ence

lay in the

super ior

force

o r vivac i ty . Be l ie f s

alone

were

accom-

d b h h

30

pan1e

y t ese c a rac te r1s t1cs .

The pr inc ip l e s

o f

connec-

t i on t h a t opera ted in the realm

of

thought were resemblance,

t

t d t 31

con

19U1 y an causa

1on.

Their in f luence

was

apparen t

in

t he or ig in and sustenance of b e l i e f . Aspects of re l ig ious

l i f e af forded

i l l u s t r a t i o n s for Hume's theory .

The ceremonies

o f

Roman catho l ic i sm,32

he

observed,

had

the

e f f e c t

o f

giv ing

the

d i s t an t immater ia l

objec t s

o f i t s worship,

an

immediate

sens ib le

meaning. This

i l l u s t r a t ed , according to hirn, the

inf luence of resemblance in enl ivening b e l i e f . For,

the


46/245

41

images,

postures

and external

motions

of

the

Catholic r i tua l

served

to

strengthen the force

and

l ive l iness

of the ideas

such

as were implied by

the tenets of tha t re l ig ion .

The

respect paid

to re l ies

and images

of

Saints

were

indica t ive

of

the

influence of causation in strengthening and maintain-

ing rel ig ious

be l ie f .

Relies,

he held,

were veri table

e f-

fec ts , l inked by

a

chain of consequences to the i r cause,

the

Saint

who was

the object of

worship.33

The rel ig ious

s ignif -

icance

of pilgr images to

holy

places exemplif ied the

opera-

t ion

of the

re la t ion of cont igui ty . The

pi lgr im's

presence

a t holy places made

t

possible

for

him

to

pass on from the

present

impression

of such

places

to

a

bel ief , i . e .

a

l ive ly

34

idea)

of

the incidents

connected

with

such

places .

Hume's

examination of the foundations of be l ie f also tended

to

throw

sorne l igh t

on

two

other issues of

in teres t

to

re l igion,

viz,

35

miraculous occurrences, and

the

future

s t a t e

of

the soule

e noted

tha t credul i ty

or

an easy fa i th

in

the

testimony

of

36

others

was an

universal

human weakness. Men

tended to

s t ray

from what ume viewed as the t rue standard of experience. e

observed tha t they showed

a

remarkable propensity to believe

whatever

is reported, even concerning appar i t ions, enchant-

ments,

and

prodigies, however contrary to dai ly experience

and

b

t

37

o

serva lOn.

Moreover,

he

pointed

out tha t

passions were


47/245

42

favourable to b e l i e f .

38

n d ~ e a r g U e d t h a t admira t ion and

s .urprise had t he same e f f ec t as other pass ions , so t h a t

among

the vu lgar ,

quacks

and pro jec tor s meet with a more easy f a i t h

upon account

of t h e i r

magnif icen t pre ten t ions ,

than

if they

kep t themselves wi th in the bounds of moderation.

The f i r s t

astonishment

which

n a tu ra l ly a t t ends t h e i r miraculous

r e l a -

t ions spreads i t s e l f

over

the whole

soul ,

and so v i v i f i e s

and

enl ivens

the

idea

t h a t it

resembles

t he in fe rences

we draw

f

39

rom e x p e r ~ e n c e On

t he sub jec t of the fu ture s t a t e of the

soul ,

i . e . , t he l i f e a f t e r death) , the b e l i e f s

o f

the major i ty

o f mankind according to Hume remained weak o r nega t ive .

40

Relig ious

exhor t a t ion

had

smal l e f f ec t on t h i s mat te r .

Indeed

d i sb e l i e f in t h i s i n s t ance was a

c on t r a s t

to the b l ind c redu l i ty

which men

disp lay

on

other occas ions .

However

ind i f f e r ence

with regard to t he fu ture s t a t e , ume c la imed

the religious views of david hume

Documents