Editing David Hume (section)

==== Religious views ====
Although he wrote a great deal about religion, Hume's personal views have been the subject of much debate.<ref group="lower-roman">For example, see {{harvtxt|Russell|2008}}; {{harvtxt|O'Connor|2013}}; and {{harvtxt|Norton|1993}}.</ref> Some modern critics have described Hume's religious views as [[Agnosticism|agnostic]] or have described him as a "[[Pyrrhonism|Pyrrhonian skeptic]]".<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Mullen|first=Shirley|year=2003|title=David Hume and a Christian Perspective on History|journal=Fides et Historia|volume=XXXV|pages=49–60}}</ref> Contemporaries considered him to be an [[Atheism|atheist]], or at least un-Christian, enough so that the [[Church of Scotland]] seriously considered bringing charges of infidelity against him.{{sfn|Mossner|1980|p=206}} Evidence of his un-Christian beliefs can especially be found in his writings on miracles, in which he attempts to separate [[historical method]] from the narrative accounts of miracles.<ref name=":0" /> Nevertheless, modern scholars have tended to dismiss the claims of Hume's contemporaries describing him as an atheist as coming from [[Religious intolerance|religiously intolerant]] people who did not understand Hume’s philosophy.<ref>{{Citation |last1=Russell |first1=Paul |title=Hume on Religion |date=2021 |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/hume-religion/ |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |edition=Winter 2021 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=31 May 2022 |last2=Kraal |first2=Anders}}</ref> The fact that contemporaries suspected him of atheism is exemplified by a story Hume liked to tell:{{sfn|Scharfstein|1998|loc=[https://books.google.com/books?id=iZQy2lu70bwC&dq=hume++fishwives&pg=PA454 p. 454, footnote]}}

<blockquote>The best theologian he ever met, he used to say, was the old Edinburgh fishwife who, having recognized him as Hume the atheist, refused to pull him out of the bog into which he had fallen until he declared he was a Christian and repeated the Lord's prayer.</blockquote>

However, in works such as "Of Superstition and Enthusiasm", Hume specifically seems to support the standard religious views of his time and place.<ref name=":12">Hume, David. 1777 [1741]. "[https://davidhume.org/texts/empl1/se Of Superstition and Enthusiasm]." Essay X in ''[https://davidhume.org/texts/empl1/full Essays Moral, Political, and Literary (1742–1754)].'' Retrieved 19 May 2020. [https://web.archive.org/web/20180710222300/http://www.davidhume.org/texts/emp.html Archived]. Also available: [http://www.english.upenn.edu/~mgamer/Etexts/hume.superstition.html Full text] and [https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/704#Hume_0059_254 Liberty Fund edition].</ref> This still meant that he could be very critical of the [[Catholic Church]], dismissing it with the standard [[Protestant]] accusations of superstition and idolatry,{{sfn|Hume|1777|p=51}}<ref name=":12" />{{Rp|70}} as well as dismissing as idolatry what his compatriots saw as uncivilised beliefs.{{sfn|Hume|1757|p=34}} He also considered extreme Protestant sects, the members of which he called "enthusiasts", to be corrupters of religion.{{sfn|Hume|1741|pp=73–76}} By contrast, in "[[Four Dissertations#The Natural History of Religion|The Natural History of Religion]]", Hume presents arguments suggesting that [[polytheism]] had much to commend it over [[monotheism]].{{sfn|Hume|1757|p=63}} Additionally, when mentioning religion as a factor in his ''History of England'', Hume uses it to show the deleterious effect it has on human progress. In his ''[[A Treatise of Human Nature|Treatise of Human Nature]]'', Hume wrote: "Generally speaking, the errors in religions are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."<ref name=":0" />

Lou Reich (1998) argues that Hume was a [[Religious naturalism|religious naturalist]] and rejects interpretations of Hume as an atheist.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Reich |first=Lou |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1RaPQgAACAAJ |title=Hume's Religious Naturalism |date=1998 |publisher=University Press of America |isbn=978-0-7618-0982-1 |pages=1–3, 41–42 |language=en}}</ref> Paul Russell (2008) writes that Hume was plainly sceptical about religious belief, although perhaps not to the extent of complete atheism. He suggests that Hume's position is best characterised by the term "[[irreligion]],"<ref>[[Paul Russell (philosopher)|Russell, Paul]]. 2008. ''The Riddle of Hume's Treatise: Skepticism, Naturalism, and Irreligion''. Oxford: [[Oxford University Press]]. {{ISBN|978-0-19-975152-5}}.</ref> while philosopher David O'Connor (2013) argues that Hume's final position was "weakly [[deistic]]". For O'Connor, Hume's "position is deeply ironic. This is because, while inclining towards a weak form of [[deism]], he seriously doubts that we can ever find a sufficiently favourable balance of evidence to justify accepting any religious position." He adds that Hume "did not believe in the God of standard theism ... but he did not rule out all concepts of deity", and that "ambiguity suited his purposes, and this creates difficulty in definitively pinning down his final position on religion".{{sfn|O'Connor|2013|loc=[https://books.google.com/books?id=ntygPAezQJUC&dq=%22but+he+did+not+rule+out+all+concepts+of+deity%22&pg=PA19 pp. 11, 19]}}