"I don`t know if you agree or not, but I thought you did a really good job at going through the text." -- precisely what I aim for. In actuality, I tend to disagree with Hume on quite a lot, and I find his account of the development of monotheism pretty implausible myself.

Sorry, I worded it poorly. I was wondering if you thought that Hume`s thinking was at least in part `reacting acting against prevailing notions at the time` and to what extend his thinking was reflective of the times ... but I think you answered in the radio show when you briefly mentioned Diderot, Rousseau and Adam Smith. I think you mentionned too Émile Durkheim in your video, which provides a different account - albeit sociological - as do Marx, Max Weber and a host of others. But thanks again - I think I`ll re-read a translation of Cicero`s `` De Natura Deorum` (On the Nature of the Gods) since I had not` made the connection with Hume (in terms of form at least). Merry Xmas to you by the way.

ZeroSheFlies Merry Christmas to you and yours! So, was Hume reacting against prevailing notions at the time, or was his thinking was reflective of the times? Really both at the same time. He's lined up with the Enlightenment thinkers against the religious orthodoxy of his own time (which does set him against the mainstream of the British thinkers around in his culture). He departs from other Enlightenment thinkers on matters like their utopianism, reliance on social contract theory, the role they accord to reason, etc. Where Hume is like Durkheim, Marx, Freud, and so on is in attempting to explain religion by providing a naturalistic account which would construe religious believers as not only not in touch with anything genuinely divine, but also in a kind of "false consciousness" (if we use the Marxian term) about the role social processes are playing in their beliefs

"reacting acting against prevailing notions at the time". I believe such an assertion, ( and I am not imlying you do actually beleive what you wrote, as it is phrased in query), would be to undermine, ifnore, or be ignorant of, his seminal work, "An Enquirey Concerning Human Understanding". I DO assert THAT work comprises the foundation upon which his prime premise is built upon. One could point to the "The History of Natural Religeon" as but a brick upon that foundation. I would also observe that men (or women, to be P.C.) sustaining intellects of such magnitude, in conjunction with their chosen expression of intelligence as the challenging arena of philosophy, would hardly deign to stoop to the sophmoric antics of anti-diestablishmentarianism to the point a philosophical principal would be undertaken with rebellion as a component of motivation. Jus' sayin'.

Well, really, if you wanted the seminal work by Hume, it's the earlier Treatise. Both Enquiries rework portions of that great work. Philosophy tends to a a lot more complex than just having a "prime premise" and building on that foundation.

You’re welcome

You're welcome! A Merry Christmas to you and yours as well

You're welcome!

Glad you enjoyed it

Glad to read it

You're welcome!

Easy throwaway remark to make. You'll want to read his works, where he addresses that

@@GregoryBSadler Mea culpa for the shoto cheapo. It's been 50 years since I last studied Hume and I've heard far too many misrepresentations of his beliefs since (primarily from skeptics, I might add). Skepticism, like Ockham's razor in the right hands, can be extremely valuable. We just have to be careful not to cut ourselves on it. Two quick questions: (1) Given that reason tells us that either the universe of its Creator has always existed and science tells us that its not the universe how could Hume believe that the creation of space-time, matter, energy and all of the finely-tuned laws and initial conditions was not the greatest of all possible miracles? Since all of God's other miracles would be smaller in comparison why believe that they would be impossible, particularly in light of eyewitness accounts, prophecy and purpose for their occurrence? (2) Would Hume have seen Darwinism as a natural religion (like Michael Ruse seemed to admit)? It does use Chance (e.g.random mutations) as a god-of-the-gaps to account for the arrival of the fittest. "...And certainly, there's no doubt about it, that in the past, and I think also in the present, for many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion ... And it seems to me very clear that at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely, that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things come what may." Michael Ruse "Nonliteralist Antievolution" AAAS Symposium: "The New Antievolutionism," February 13, 1993, Boston, MA

@@artbattson3000 Nah. Start out like that, and you go way down in the list of who I devote my resource of time to. Good luck with your studies