Hume's Moral Atheism

Idolatry, indifference, and the scientific study of religion: two new Humean arguments

“…We do not claim either argument is explicitly offered in any particular text. Nonetheless, the two arguments have a distinctly Humean flavour; previous authors have identified similar themes (Siebert (1984); Holden (2010); De Cruz (2015) ). Some of Hume's discussion of religion (e.g.…”

“…Hume scholars agree with our interpretation. For example, Thomas Holden cites passages to support the claim that human passions are not directed towards God (Holden (2010), 51). According to Holden, Hume believed that ‘God is not merely currently unseen and unknown [on Hume's view] but “Invisib[le] and Incomprehensib[le]” ’, unrepresentable by human faculties ( ibid ., 66).…”

“…The incarnation of God in material objects is a kind of divine simulacrum in the physical world enabling religious activity ( ibid ., 393–394). For Holden, Hume's work implies an argument for moral atheism, according to which the Ultimate cause and sustainer of the universe cannot be an object of moral evaluation (Holden (2010), 49). We do not take a position on whether Holden's interpretation of Hume as a ‘moral atheist’ is correct or if Hume advanced the various arguments Holden believes to be implicit in Hume's work.…”

Hume's Social Epistemology and the Dialogue Form

“…The underlying consideration here concerns the kind of conclusions that Hume's mitigated scepticism allows him to endorse. For instance, Holden (2010) thinks that even in natural theology, his mitigated scepticism allows us to endorse some limited conclusions about God.…”

“…Next, notice that after enumerating the evils (inferential argument from evil), he continues by presenting the evidential argument from evil. The evidential argument, as Holden (2010) notes is clearly an argument that Philo cannot endorseit clearly contradicts his own epistemological position (Holden 2010: 173-6). Instead, unlike his presentation of the logical argument from evil (in D 10), Philo's presentation of the evidential argument may be viewed as a clear act of rhetorical persuasion, using strong and colourful language:…”