Prof grizzlebizzle

Re: Hume an atheist?

Yes, I do seriously hold the view that David Hume was an atheist. And for what it's worth, I am a "serious scholar" of early modern philosophy. Since I obviously cannot corroborate myself, however, know that I am joined in this contention by Paul Russell (whose subtle and nuanced account of Hume's religious views is well worth reading) and the late J.L. Mackie. Hume's atheism also comes out quite clearly during his final interview with James Boswell, and the only time Hume claimed not to be an atheist was in an attempt to get a job he had been denied because he was an atheist. There are others, scholarly and otherwise, who hold my view (Anthony Flew, for instance, counts Hume as an atheist even after his conversion), but I have responded to your direct challenge. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Mackie was a very dedicated Hume scholar; but if you aren't willing to accept him, then perhaps you should look into Ernest Mossner. I suppose you might be thinking of Nick Capaldi's view, but a crucial aspect of his argument comes from the bizarre assumption that everyone in the Dialogues speaks for Hume, as opposed to the more reasonable assumption that none of the characters speak directly for him. Moreover, Capaldi goes to great lengths to convince us that the Dialogues are not about whether or not God exists, but rather the relationship between religion and morality. Yet he goes on to claim the Dialogues as evidence of Hume's theism! Now, Hume was obviously conflicted during the course of his life over the design argument. But despite his inability to find an empirically sound way in which to eviscerate it, he clearly wanted to reject the argument. Indeed, Philo comes tantalizingly close to positing the theory of evolution in the Dialogues, only to give up due to a dearth of empirical evidence (the price of living in a pre-Darwinian age). That is, Hume knew where science needed to go, it just hadn't gotten there (yet). As such, he was loathe to state his personal convictions as the sure conclusion of an appropriately empirical philosophy. Thus was his intellectual conscience.

And it is this intellectual conscience that comes out in the d'Holback dinner party anecdote. To be an agnostic philosophically is certainly the only reasonable position, as Hume and Kierkegaard both show. But as Kierkegaard taught us, the heart is never neutral—it always makes a choice. And insofar as that choice is definitive of who is an atheist and who is a theist, I think Hume falls in the former category. Indeed, as Hume himself said:

The conviction of the religionists, in all ages, is more affected than real... Men dare not avow, even to their own hearts, the doubts which they entertain on such subjects: they make a merit of implicit faith; and disguise to themselves their real infidelity.

Hume and Kierkegaard nicely sum up my own view on the question of theism versus atheism, and insofar as I see myself in precisely the same position as Hume (philosophically agnostic, but personally lacking faith) I see us as both atheists in an important and relevant sense. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S.

When posting on someone's talk page, it's polite to add your comments to the bottom of the page. If you click on the little "+" sign next to the "edit this page" button, new topics will go to the bottom automatically. Also, after I edited my talk page to place your comment in the appropriate spot, your next comment was placed randomly in the middle of other conversations. Please be more careful in the future. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)