• Alan Bailey
  • Dan O’Brien
Part of the The New Synthese Historical Library book series (SYNL, volume 72)


Hume has rejected natural theology and does not think that there is any good evidence to suggest that God has revealed himself through miraculous occurrences. Further, in the absence of any good reasons for belief in the existence of God, Hume provides a natural history that explains the prevalence of religious belief amongst human societies. It is important to note, though, that Hume’s attitude to religion is not that of a dispassionate philosopher who has uncovered a paucity of argument in support of certain commitments. Hume is hostile towards religion and this hostility is grounded, to a great extent, in what he sees as the moral failings of religion. This chapter will spell out these failings and discuss Hume’s alternative secular moral theory.


Human Nature Moral Judgement Sexual Desire Sexual Attraction Sexual Double Standard 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adams, M.M. 1989. Horrendous evils and the goodness of god. Proceeding of the Aristotelian Society 63(suppl): 297–310.Google Scholar
  2. Aquinas, St.T. 1274. Summa theologica. Teddington, Middlesex: The Echo Library.Google Scholar
  3. Augustine. St. 413 ce. 2004. City of god. In St. Augustine’s City of god and Church doctrine: Nicene and post-nicene fathers of the Christian church, ed. P. Schaff. Whitefish, Montana: Kessinger.Google Scholar
  4. Baier, A. 1991. A progress of sentiments: Reflection on Hume’s treatise. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Beauchamp, T. 1998. Introduction to David Hume. In An enquiry concerning the principles of morals, ed. T. Beauchamp. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Calvin, J. 1559. Institutes of the Christian religion, 2 vols., ed. J.T. McNeill, Trans. F.L. Battles. London: S.C.M. Press Ltd., 1961.Google Scholar
  7. Craig, E. 1997. Hume on religion. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study.Google Scholar
  8. D’Holbach, P.H.T. 1770. The system of nature, 2 vols., Trans. H.D. Robinson. Kitchener: Batoche Books, 2001.Google Scholar
  9. Herdt, J.A. 1997. Religion and faction in Hume’s moral philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hume, D. 1739. A treatise of human nature, ed. D.F. Norton and M.J. Norton. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  11. Hume, D. 1772a. An enquiry concerning human understanding, ed. T.L. Beauchamp. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  12. Hume, D. 1772b. An enquiry concerning the principles of morals, ed. T. Beauchamp. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998.Google Scholar
  13. Hume, D. 1777a. Essays, moral, political, and literary, rev ed., ed. E.F. Miller. Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1987.Google Scholar
  14. Hume, D. 1777b. My own life. In Dialogues and natural history of religion, ed. D. Hume and J.C.A. Gaskin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  15. Hume, D. 1777c. The natural history of religion. In Dialogues and natural history of religion, ed. J.C.A. Gaskin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  16. Hume, D. 1778. History of England: From the invasion of Julius Caesar to the revolution in 1688, 6 vols. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hume, D. 1779. Dialogues concerning natural religion. In Hume’s dialogues concerning natural religion, 2nd ed, ed. N. Kemp Smith. Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 1947.Google Scholar
  18. Kail, P. 2007. Projection and realism in Hume’s philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Langton, R. 2004. Projection and objectification. In The future for philosophy, ed. B. Leiter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Livingston, D.W. 1998. Philosophical melancholy and delirium: Hume’s pathology of philosophy. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lloyd, G. 1984. The man of reason: ‘Male’ and ‘female’ in western philosophy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lloyd, G. 2000. Hume on the passion for truth. In Feminist interpretations of David Hume, ed. A.J. Jacobson. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lucretius. 2003. On the nature of things, ed. W. Englert. Newburyport: Ron Pullins.Google Scholar
  24. Mackie, J. 1980. The cement of the universe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. O’Brien, D. 2012. Hume and the virtues. In Continuum companion to Hume, ed. A. Bailey and D. O’Brien, 288–302. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  26. Phillipson, N. 1989. Hume. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
  27. Ranke-Heinemann, U. 1991. Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven: Women, sexuality and the Catholic Church. Trans. P. Heinegg. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  28. Sayre-McCord, G. 1994. On why Hume’s general point of view isn’t ideal—and shouldn’t be’. Social Philosophy and Policy 11(1): 202–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Voltaire. 1764. Philosophical Dictionary. Trans. T. Besterman. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan Bailey
    • 1
  • Dan O’Brien
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Law, Social Sciences and CommunicationsUniversity of WolverhamptonWolverhamptonUK
  2. 2.Department of History, Philosophy and ReligionOxford Brookes UniversityOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations