David Hume's "The natural history of religion" is a very valuable text. However, this edition is an unreadable product because the editors did not proof read the book after scanning and OCR of the text. The result is a book with many words missing letters and words strung together without spaces. A typical example of a hasty product. Amazon should impose a quality control on both editing and the correct page numbering. As such, this edition is useless. There are two other editions available on Amazon, I suggest one tries his or her luck with those. For me, this was wasted money.

Great

This work is essential reading for students of Philosophy and Religion, and important for it's implications on society and politics.

I strongly recommend reading this work.

David Hume (1711-1776) was a Scottish philosopher, historian ], economist, and essayist; his other works include A Treatise of Human Nature Volume 1,A Treatise of Human Nature Volume 2,An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding,An Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals,Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, etc. [NOTE: page numbers below refer to the 76-page Stanford University paperback edition.]

Hume wrote in his Introduction, "The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author; and no rational inquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion. But ... concerning the origin of religion in human nature, is exposed to some more difficulty. The belief of invisible, intelligent power has been very generally diffused over the human race, in all places and in all ages; but it has neither perhaps been so universal as to admit of no exception, nor has it been... uniform in the ideas, which it has suggested... The first religious principles must be secondary; such as may easily be perverted by various accidents and causes, and whose operation too, in some cases, may... be altogether prevented. What those principles are, which give rise to the original belief, and what those accidents and causes are, which direct its operation, is the subject of our present enquiry."

He suggests, "it must appear impossible, that theism could, from reasoning, have been the primary religion of human race, and have afterwards, by corruption, given birth to polytheism and to all the various superstitions of the heathen world. Reason, when obvious, prevents those corruptions: When abstruse, it keeps the principles entirely from the knowledge of the vulgar, who are alone liable to corrupt any principle or opinion." (I, Pg. 26)

He observes, "if ... we trace the footsteps of invisible power in the various and contrary events of human life, we are necessarily led into polytheism and to the acknowledgement of several limited and imperfect deities. Storms and tempests ruin what is nourished by the sun. The sun destroys what is fostered by the moisture of dews and rains. ... In short, the conduct of events, or what we may call the plan of a particular providence, is so full of variety and uncertainty, that, if we suppose it immediately ordered by any intelligent beings, we must acknowledge a contrariety in their designs and intentions, a constant combat of opposite powers, and a repentance or change of intention in the same power, from impotence of levity." (II, Pg. 27)

He points out, "From the comparison of theism and idolatry, we may form some other observations... that the corruption of the best things gives rise to the worst. Where the deity is represented as infinitely superior to mankind, this belief, though altogether just, is apt, when joined with superstitious terrors, to sink the human mind into the lowest submission and abasement, and to represent the monkish virtues of mortification, penance, humility, and passive suffering, as the only qualities which are acceptable to him. But where the gods are conceived to be only a little superior to mankind, and to have been, many of them, advanced from that inferior rank, we are more at our ease, in our addresses to them, and may even, without profaneness, aspire sometimes to a rivalship and emulation of them." (X, pg. 52)

He asserts, "all popular theology, especially the scholastic, has a kind of appetite for absurdity and contradiction. If that theology went beyond reason and common sense, her doctrines would appear too easy and familiar. Amazement must of necessity be raised: Mystery affected: Darkness and obscurity sought after: And a foundation of merit afforded to the devout votaries, who desire an opportunity of subduing their rebellious reason, by the belief of the most unintelligible sophisms." (XI, Pg. 54)

He states, "Upon the whole, the greatest and most observable differences between a traditional, mythological religion, and a systematical, scholastic one are two: the former is often more reasonable, as consisting only of a multitude of stories, which, however, groundless, imply no express absurdity and demonstrative contradiction; and sits also so easy and light on men's minds, that, though it may be as universally received, it happily makes no such deep impression on the affections and understanding." (XII, Pg. 65)

This hardly a "distinguished" work of religious anthropology. (If Hume was an "armchair historian," he was even more certainly an "armchair religious anthropologist.") But it is a very insightful book and provides more useful insight on Hume's views on religion.

David Hume (1711-1776) was a Scottish philosopher, historian ], economist, and essayist; his other works include A Treatise of Human Nature Volume 1,A Treatise of Human Nature Volume 2,An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding,An Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals,Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, etc. [NOTE: page numbers below refer to the 76-page Stanford University paperback edition.]

Hume wrote in his Introduction, "The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author; and no rational inquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion. But ... concerning the origin of religion in human nature, is exposed to some more difficulty. The belief of invisible, intelligent power has been very generally diffused over the human race, in all places and in all ages; but it has neither perhaps been so universal as to admit of no exception, nor has it been... uniform in the ideas, which it has suggested... The first religious principles must be secondary; such as may easily be perverted by various accidents and causes, and whose operation too, in some cases, may... be altogether prevented. What those principles are, which give rise to the original belief, and what those accidents and causes are, which direct its operation, is the subject of our present enquiry."

He suggests, "it must appear impossible, that theism could, from reasoning, have been the primary religion of human race, and have afterwards, by corruption, given birth to polytheism and to all the various superstitions of the heathen world. Reason, when obvious, prevents those corruptions: When abstruse, it keeps the principles entirely from the knowledge of the vulgar, who are alone liable to corrupt any principle or opinion." (I, Pg. 26)

He observes, "if ... we trace the footsteps of invisible power in the various and contrary events of human life, we are necessarily led into polytheism and to the acknowledgement of several limited and imperfect deities. Storms and tempests ruin what is nourished by the sun. The sun destroys what is fostered by the moisture of dews and rains. ... In short, the conduct of events, or what we may call the plan of a particular providence, is so full of variety and uncertainty, that, if we suppose it immediately ordered by any intelligent beings, we must acknowledge a contrariety in their designs and intentions, a constant combat of opposite powers, and a repentance or change of intention in the same power, from impotence of levity." (II, Pg. 27)

He points out, "From the comparison of theism and idolatry, we may form some other observations... that the corruption of the best things gives rise to the worst. Where the deity is represented as infinitely superior to mankind, this belief, though altogether just, is apt, when joined with superstitious terrors, to sink the human mind into the lowest submission and abasement, and to represent the monkish virtues of mortification, penance, humility, and passive suffering, as the only qualities which are acceptable to him. But where the gods are conceived to be only a little superior to mankind, and to have been, many of them, advanced from that inferior rank, we are more at our ease, in our addresses to them, and may even, without profaneness, aspire sometimes to a rivalship and emulation of them." (X, pg. 52)

He asserts, "all popular theology, especially the scholastic, has a kind of appetite for absurdity and contradiction. If that theology went beyond reason and common sense, her doctrines would appear too easy and familiar. Amazement must of necessity be raised: Mystery affected: Darkness and obscurity sought after: And a foundation of merit afforded to the devout votaries, who desire an opportunity of subduing their rebellious reason, by the belief of the most unintelligible sophisms." (XI, Pg. 54)

He states, "Upon the whole, the greatest and most observable differences between a traditional, mythological religion, and a systematical, scholastic one are two: the former is often more reasonable, as consisting only of a multitude of stories, which, however, groundless, imply no express absurdity and demonstrative contradiction; and sits also so easy and light on men's minds, that, though it may be as universally received, it happily makes no such deep impression on the affections and understanding." (XII, Pg. 65)

This hardly a "distinguished" work of religious anthropology. (If Hume was an "armchair historian," he was even more certainly an "armchair religious anthropologist.") But it is a very insightful book and provides more