Review of D.Z. Phillips’s Religion and Hume’s Legacy

by

James Fieser

From Journal of the History of Philosophy April 2001, Vol. 39, pp. 299-300.

D.Z. Phillips and Timothy, editors. New York: Religion and Hume’s Legacy. St. Martin’s Press, 1999. xx + 282.

Books on Hume’s philosophy usually emphasize either close textual analysis or historical influences on Hume. The audience for such books usually consists of Hume specialists and historians of philosophy. Religion and Hume’s Legacy defies this categorization. Edited by D.Z. Phillips and Timothy Tessin, the book is a collection of 18 essays, most of which connect Hume’s philosophy of religion with broader and more contemporary philosophical interests. The authors urge us to take seriously Hume’s skeptical challenges and they use Hume as a springboard to develop nontraditional views of the philosophy of religion. The essays were originally presented at the 1997 Claremont Conference on the Philosophy of Religion. Although a few of these are written by prominent Hume scholars, many of the authors are Wittgenstein scholars – as is Phillips himself – and Wittgensteinian perspectives figure prominently throughout the volume.

            The book is thematically divided into six parts, and at the close of five of these Phillips presents a fictitious dialog – much like a panel discussion – in which about 15 voices debate the topic under consideration. The book’s first part is titled “Hume’s Epistemological and Moral Critique”. The first essay, by Simon Blackburn titled “Playing Hume’s Hand,” criticises Hume’s “Bare Claim” about the existence and nature of God. In particular, Blackburn addresses the limitations of Hume’s view from a Kantian, Jamesian and Wittgensteinian stance. The second essay, “Morality and Religion: Towards Meeting Hume’s Challenge” by William H. Brenner, draws on Chesterton, Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein in critique of Hume’s conception of an amoral God in the Dialogues.

            The book’s second part is on “Hume’s ‘True Religion’”. The first of these essays, “Hume’s ‘Mitigated Scepticism’: Some Implications for Religious Belief” by M. Jamie Ferreira, explains how Hume’s Natural History of Religion exemplifies Hume’s reflectively-tempered skepticism. The second, “Is There Anything Religious about Philo’s’ True Religion’?” by Van A. Harvey, reacts against Gaskin’s theory of Hume’s attenuated theism. According to Harvey, Philo’s minimalist religion reflects, on the one hand, the believer’s assertion of true religious feelings, and, on the other hand, the believer’s distrust of rational theology and organized religion. The third, “Is Hume’s ‘True Religion’ a Religious Belief?” by D.Z. Phillips, criticizes Harvey’s interpretation and defends Gaskin; however, Philips adds that Hume’s minimalist theism is inconsistent by Hume’s own standards and Hume should have rejected it.

            The book’s third part discusses “Hume on Miracles”. The first essay is “Hume and the Miraculous” by  R.W. Beardsmore, who since passed away and to whom the book is dedicated. Beardsmore agrees with Hume that it is never rational to believe that a miracle has occurred – largely because of scientific advances today. However, Beardsmore believes that Hume’s argument for this position is weak. In the next essay Stephen T. Davis responds to Beardsmore.

            The book’s fourth part discusses “Hume on Superstition”. The first essay, “Hume on Superstition” by Martin Bell, discusses Hume’s view of superstitious religion in the context of Bayle’s account of superstition. In the next essay Jane L. McIntyre responds to Bell, emphasizing the role of human passions in religious belief.

            The book’s fifth part is on “Philosophy of Religion after Hume”. Antony Flew opens with “Can Religion be Rational?” explaining how Hume delineates the issue of religion in his various writings. Flew also clarifies his own view of religion and reason as appears in his essay “Theology and Falsification.” Nancey Murphy  responds to Flew in “Overcoming Hume on His Own Terms”, and suggests that we find an answer to Hume’s religious critique in Alasdair MacIntyre’s notion of tradition-constituted reason. The third essay by B.R. Tilghman, “Religion after Hume: Tightrope Walking in an Age of Enlightenment,” contends that Hume’s legacy is the denial of an intellectual justification of religious belief. Following Wittgenstein, Tilghman suggests that we might respond to Hume’s legacy by emphasizing ways of living rather than ways of believing.

            The book’s sixth and final part, on “Hume in Historical Context” contains a single essay by Peter Jones titled “Hume on Context, Sentiment and Testimony in Religion,” which offers historical background on the emergence of Hume’s views.

            This book’s most unique and appealing feature is the eclectic nature of its various essays, especially as reflected in Phillips’s concluding dialogs. One might even argue that this style of book is more important than the usual exegetical and historical works on Hume. Hume’s prominence in the history of philosophy owes less to highly specialized studies of him and more to his broad impact on philosophers of all types. Religion and Hume’s Legacy successfully captures the broad appeal of Hume’s religious challenge, and this book should be of great interest not only to Hume scholars but to anyone interested in progressive philosophy of religion. The work is most suitable to readers at the graduate school level, although many of the essays would be accessible to students in upper level undergraduate classes.

James Fieser

Department of Philosophy

University of Tennessee at Martin

Martin, TN 38238