Doxastic Naturalism and Hume's Voice in the Dialogues

Journal of Scottish Philosophy 14 (3):253-274 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX


I argue that acknowledging Hume as a doxastic naturalist about belief in a deity allows an elegant, holistic reading of his Dialogues. It supports a reading in which Hume's spokesperson is Philo throughout, and enlightens many of the interpretive difficulties of the work. In arguing this, I perform a comprehensive survey of evidence for and against Philo as Hume's voice, bringing new evidence to bear against the interpretation of Hume as Cleanthes and against the amalgamation view while correcting several standard mistakes. I ultimately isolate the interpretation of Philo's Reversal at the end of the Dialogues as of paramount importance, and show how my naturalistic interpretation makes this, and other notoriously difficult passages, unproblematic.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,296

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library


Added to PP

10 (#1,222,590)

6 months
53 (#90,063)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

C.m. Lorkowski
Kent State University

Citations of this work

Hume's Rhetorical Strategy: Three Views.Daryl Ooi - 2021 - Journal of Scottish Philosophy 19 (3):243–259.
Hume on Theoretical Simplicity.Hsueh Qu - 2023 - Philosophers' Imprint 23 (1).

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Cognition and Commitment in Hume’s Philosophy.Don Garrett - 1997 - Philosophical and Phenomenological Research 62 (1):191-196.
Dialogues concerning Natural Religion.David Hume & Nelson Pike - 1973 - Religious Studies 9 (2):237-238.
The Life of David Hume.Ernest Campbell Mossner - 1956 - Philosophy 31 (116):80-82.
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.J. E. C., David Hume & Bruce M'Ewen - 1907 - Philosophical Review 16 (3):338.
The suasive art of David Hume.M. A. Box - 1990 - Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

View all 16 references / Add more references