The Natural History of Religion

Hume's Natural History of Religion is an early foray into comparative religious studies. As a professed partisan of "genuine Theism and Religion" (21), Hume shows his own implicit theological orientation to be an unsurprising Enlightenment Deism. The "natural history" element of his account emphasizes what he understood to be the chronological priority of polytheism to (mono-) theism, and the general rooting of religious behavior and identity in relatively base fears and appetites.

As editor H.E. Root notes, Hume's primary historical data are rather incomplete and under-interpreted from the perspective of more recent studies of the same questions. His overall polemical fabric, is, however, nicely woven. While giving greater theological show more credit to the theists (evidently the Abrahamic religions), he also notes that their loftier virtues are reflected in more significant vices than pagan polytheists ever exhibited. The second major arc of the text is a series of comparisons between polytheism and theism on the counts of "Persecution and Toleration," "courage or abasement," "reason or absurdity," and "Doubt or Conviction." In this sequence of short chapters, the illustrations grow more and more amusing, climaxing with a series of jokes about the Eucharist in the question of "Doubt or Conviction" (55-7).

After the sets of comparisons, Hume moves on to a pox on both houses section, in which he castigates religions generally on grounds of "impious conceptions of the divine nature" and "bad influence on morality." These are the most contentious chapters, and likely the ones that especially earned the alarm and reprobation of his contemporaries. But they are soundly argued.

In his "Editor's Introduction," Root understands the final gesture of Hume's text to be one proposing that philosophy be a "substitute for religion" (20). But Root had already observed that Hume "did not believe that religion was a 'primary' constituent of human nature" (14) and thus it was in no need of a substitute if philosophers or others were to turn away from it. Root also neglects the intellectual history of the centuries leading up to Hume, in which theology and philosophy were often construed as mutually antagonistic efforts. An empiricist such as Hume could not help but be a partisan of philosophy in this contest, and such partisanship was perhaps the motive guiding this entire text. show less

What are the origins of religion? The question has been working up more than one philosopher over the past centuries! Hume, tentatively, attempted to answer it too... How did he fare?

For him, to understand the origins of religion one must first of all understand how the most primitives among them -to him: polytheisms- were born and later developed, since monotheisms are its descendants. What he noticed, is that from births to marriages, deaths, wars, fortunes, poverty, suffering, happiness, diseases, health, and wealth and lack, not only our mortal, human lives, are being shaped by all sorts of highs and lows, but, pagan divinities are all, some ways or others, connected to such life circumstances... To worship the gods, then, to try show more and gain their favours, is for Hume but a crude mean to try and control the uncontrollable. Religion, in other words, is born out of our emotions, poorly stirred by ignorance and our fears of the unknown.

He, actually, extrapolates, by showing that the logical outcome of the competition between all these gods and divinities, all these cults and rituals, could only lead to the establishment of One and Only, more powerful, more omnipotent, more helpful. What that a good thing? Not at all! One God, one cult, one dogma, one and only 'Truth', could only have but deplorable consequences for morality and mankind as a whole, with never ending religious wars and conflicts to religious fanaticisms and dogmatisms being evidence of such negative outcome...

Well?

Well, Hume was wrong about primitive religions: animism and totemism predated polytheism. He can also be annoying, relentlessly portraying religions as something akin to being immoral, as if morality was solely dependent upon a belief (or not) in God (having said that, he was writing in 18th century Europe -such view, then, can be forgiven, or so I guess...). Yet...

Yet, for those (like me) who don't believe in 'divine revelations', let alone in the supernatural, I found that his views still stands remarkably well and are still remarkably relevant. Isn't indeed all about emotions, explaining the unknown, trying to control the uncontrollable, and bringing comfort amidst uncertainties? Maybe. Or maybe not. Again: the question has been working up countless thinkers across the centuries, and I personally doubt that a clear cut explanation will ever be offered! Meanwhile, though, here's a very short essay, but worth reading. show less

David Hume was een scherpzinnig criticus van de neiging tot religieus fanatisme en dogmatisme die zijns inziens vooral uit het westerse monotheïsme voortvloeit. Dat blijkt onder meer uit zijn Natural History of Religion. Hierin betoogt Hume dat religie niet zozeer ontspringt aan een cognitieve overtuiging betreffende het bestaan van een almachtige God, maar veeleer aan de passies van angst en hoop en de neiging tot antropomorfe projectie. Uitgaande van deze gedachte verdedigt hij dat het westerse monotheïsme volgens een natuurlijk-causaal proces is ontstaan uit het meer primitieve polytheïsme. Het essay, dat is geschreven in een kleurrijke en polemische stijl, laat zich niet enkel lezen als een studie over het ontstaan van het show more monotheïsme, maar ook als een kritische bezinning op de verhouding van de religie tot de moraliteit, de passies en de menselijke sociabiliteit. In dit boek is tevens een vertaling opgenomen van Humes essay 'Of Superstition and Enthousiasm'. Dit vlot leesbare opstel geeft een goed beeld van Humes meer praktische en morele kritiek op de religie. 'Dit geschrift (The Natural History of Religion) toont Hume in zijn volle grootheid als schrijver' (F.L. van Holthoon in zijn boek Hume - Leven en werk) Mede t.g.v. Hume's 300ste geboortedag op 26 april 2011. David Hume (1711-1776) Schots filosoof, essayist, historicus en diplomaat, is een van de belangrijkste denkers van de achttiende eeuw. Hij geldt als de voornaamste criticus vóór Kant van de klassieke metafysica show less