Work #142 · Late period

The Natural History of Religion

Hume's 1757 anthropological account of how religious belief actually arose — fear, ignorance, and polytheism preceding monotheism

David Hume · 1757 (Four Dissertations) · English · Philosophical-anthropological essay

Tradition: Scottish Enlightenment / philosophy of religion

Religion arose not from rational argument but from fear of natural events — and polytheism, not monotheism, is the natural human starting-point

The Natural History of Religion is Hume's "anthropological" companion to the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (written earlier but published posthumously). Where the Dialogues asks whether religious belief is rationally justified, the Natural History asks how religious belief actually arose historically and psychologically. Hume's thesis: religion did not begin with rational reflection on the order of nature but with fear of unpredictable natural events — storms, plagues, the sudden death of loved ones. The first religious belief was polytheism (distinct gods for distinct natural phenomena), not monotheism — which Hume argues arose later through priestly flattery rather than philosophical insight. The work shaped subsequent anthropology of religion (Tylor, Frazer, Durkheim) and contemporary cognitive science of religion (Boyer, Atran, Norenzayan).

Author

Editions cited

  • The Natural History of Religion (H. E. Root, Stanford, 1956)
  • A Dissertation on the Passions; The Natural History of Religion (Tom Beauchamp, Oxford, 2007)

School Embodiments

Naturalism · 30%
Empiricism · 20%
Pyrrhonism · 10%
Logical Positivism · 10%
Liberal Theology · 10%
Relativism · 5%
Deism · 5%
Nihilism · 5%
Absurdism · 5%

The Natural History is one of the founding documents of modern philosophical naturalism about religion — religion is a natural human phenomenon to be explained, not a transcendent reality to be assumed.

"The primary religion of mankind arises chiefly from an anxious fear of future events." (Natural History §III)

Hume applies his empirical-historical method to religious belief — observing actual religious practice across cultures rather than reasoning a priori from rational principles.

"Examine the religious principles which have, in fact, prevailed in the world." (Natural History, opening)

The Natural History's sceptical method — suspending judgement on the truth of religious claims while studying their psychological-historical causes — is recognisably Pyrrhonian.

"There is nothing which can satisfy this enquiry beyond the limits of our weak conjectures." (Natural History, closing)

The Vienna Circle and the broader twentieth-century positivist movement treated Hume's naturalist-historical method as foundational for the scientific study of religion.

"To know God, says Seneca, is to worship him. All other worship is indeed absurd, superstitious, and even impious." (Natural History §XII)

Liberal theology developed in partial response to Hume — Schleiermacher's On Religion (1799) attempts to relocate religion in feeling, protecting it from Hume's historical-philosophical critique.

"Universal panic, terror, and gloom" produce religion. (Natural History §III, paraphrasing)

The Natural History's comparative-anthropological method anticipates later cultural relativism about religious belief, though Hume himself remained committed to enlightened philosophical rationality.

"The Catholic religion, and all others which tend to a perpetual mixture of human and divine, have, on this principle, derived perpetual novelty." (Natural History §IX, paraphrasing)
Deism 5%

A complicated relationship: Hume's naturalism critiques deistic rational theology as much as orthodox supernaturalism. But the broader deistic-Enlightenment context is where the Natural History becomes possible as a philosophical genre.

"The conviction of an invisible intelligent power is much weaker among the common people." (Natural History, paraphrasing)

Hume's closing irony ("the whole is a riddle, an enigma, an inexplicable mystery") has been read by some as crypto-nihilist. Hume himself remained committed to common-sense moral and civic life.

"The whole is a riddle, an enigma, an inexplicable mystery." (Natural History, closing)

A more distant philosophical neighbourhood: Hume's closing meditation on the religious condition of humanity has been read by twentieth-century absurdists as a precursor to their diagnoses.

"Doubt, uncertainty, suspense of judgement appear the only result of our most accurate scrutiny." (Natural History, closing)

Internal Tensions

The Natural History's claim that polytheism is the natural starting-point of religion has been disputed on anthropological grounds (Andrew Lang's "Making of Religion" 1898 argued for a "high god" hypothesis compatible with primitive monotheism). Modern cognitive science of religion has partly vindicated and partly modified Hume's naturalistic framework.

I. Time

Real historical time of religious development. Polytheism precedes monotheism, not the other way around.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Grain: Continuous Freedom: Deterministic Traversability: Linear Direction: Uni-directional Dimensionality: One

II. Space

Standard background.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Curvature: Flat Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

III. Matter

Standard naturalist materialist background.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

IV. Observer

The Humean observer of religion is the philosophical-anthropological investigator examining the natural human propensities that generate religious belief. No metaphysical agency posited.

Attributes
Time Instance: Single Space Instance: Single Knowledge Extent: Immediate Knowledge Retainment: Immediate Physicality: Embodied Agency: Active Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: None

V. Energy

Standard background.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Irreversible

VI. Information

Religious belief is real social-cultural information produced by natural human propensities, not revelation from a transcendent source. Personal information not conserved across death.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Relational Cosmic Conservation: Non-conserved Personal Conservation: Non-conserved Granularity: Discrete

Personas that cite this work

David Hume

Personas with the nearest attribute fingerprint

Historical figures whose own classification on the same six-dimensional grid lands closest to this work's. Computed by attribute-agreement on coordinates both address.

Computed school proximity

The work's attribute fingerprint scored against all schools using the same quiz scorer. Useful as a sanity check on the hand-curated embodiments above.

How The Natural History of Religion resolves each dilemma

51 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 12 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 6 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
Do you really choose?
If the brain is a physical system and physical systems are governed by laws, then every choice is also a chain of causes — which raises the question of what was really left to choose.
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
On this view, the future is determined and you are genuinely choosing. Those aren't contradictory because the determination runs through you rather than around you: your reasoning, deliberation, and assent are the way the determined outcome gets settled. Choice is what it feels like from …
Roads not taken The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it. (69%) · Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state. (10%) · Even if the universe is undetermined, you are not the chooser. (6%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
Addiction looks from one angle like the textbook case of agency failing — a person doing what they don't, in any meaningful sense, want to do. From another angle it looks like agency at work in hard conditions. Which it is depends on what agency is.
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
On this view, the addict is acting within a determined order but is genuinely acting — making decisions, endorsing or resisting urges, seeking or refusing help. Responsibility attaches not because some uncaused choice happened, but because the addict is the kind of agent through which …
Roads not taken The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real. (69%) · The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact. (10%) · Even if the universe is undetermined, the addict isn't the chooser. (6%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
When an autonomous AI takes an action that harms someone, the question of who or what is responsible — the developer, the operator, the model itself — turns on whether the model is the kind of thing that can be a responsible agent.
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
On this view, what makes a being responsible is not indeterminism but the kind of process the being is. An AI that deliberates, considers consequences, can be given reasons, and modifies its behaviour on reflection is doing what responsible agency is, even if its underlying …
Roads not taken An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible. (69%) · An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers. (10%) · Neither AIs nor anyone else are the locus of free agency; the question is the wrong one. (6%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The heat death of the universe — entropy maxed out, no further work possible — is among the more sobering implications of mainstream physics. Whether it is structurally inescapable depends on what kind of finitude the cosmos has.
Both time and matter are unbounded; 'running out' is misframed.
On this view, the cosmos has neither a temporal horizon nor a material exhaustion point. The framing of running out presupposes bounds that the cosmos doesn't have. Energy gradients perpetuate; new configurations emerge; the categories that make heat-death scary don't apply at the cosmic scale.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing. (47%) · Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional. (26%) · The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Whether we can grow our way out of resource constraints — or whether the cosmos sets limits the economy ultimately must obey — depends on what kind of finitude matter has.
Resources are practically inexhaustible on cosmic scales; terrestrial limits are engineering.
On this view, matter and time are both unbounded at the largest scales. Terrestrial resource limits are real engineering and political constraints but not metaphysical ones; the cosmos can in principle support whatever expansion intelligence is capable of.
Roads not taken Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time. (47%) · The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us. (26%) · Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit. (12%)
4 mainstream positions
Matter · 7 dilemmas, all mainstream

Observer · 37 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.

Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree (27/202)
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Pancomputationalism, Planck-scale quanta, simulation theory and Kabbalistic letter-mysticism all say yes — but for very different reasons. The rest of the atlas says no.
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
On this view, the world is at bottom discrete and law-governed, with no metaphysical agency above or behind the substrate. Reality reduces to bits or their physical analogues; the continuous appearance of fields and flows is coarse-graining over discrete underlying structure.
Roads not taken No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure. (44%) · No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure. (37%) · Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism. (6%)
Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree (27/202)
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Whiteheadian actual occasions, Buddhist moments of mind, Kabbalistic letter-cognitions, IIT phi-units — or the unbroken Jamesian stream? The atomism of experience cuts across naturalism and theism alike.
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
On this view, experience comes in discrete units defined by the substrate: information-theoretic phi-units, computational frames, discrete neural events. There is no further metaphysical agency that knits them; the appearance of a stream is the way many discrete events present to introspection.
Roads not taken No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness. (44%) · No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time. (37%) · Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions. (6%)
Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree (27/202)
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Engrams and traces — or continuous re-narration each time you remember? The cognitive-science debate has a theological cousin: divine memory holding each hair, or the ancestors' continuous remembering.
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
On this view, memory is the readout of discrete information stored in the substrate: engrams, synaptic weights, file-like records. Reconstruction at retrieval is real but secondary; without the stored bits there would be nothing to reconstruct from.
Roads not taken Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed. (44%) · Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams. (37%) · Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units. (6%)
Distinctive · only 14% of schools agree (29/202)
What makes someone the same person over time?
When dementia hollows out memory, when a coma resolves with no recall, when you imagine being uploaded — the question of whether the surviving person is still you turns on what kind of thing the 'you' was to begin with.
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
On these views, what we call a self was always a stream of experience, a constructed narrative, a process — never a thing whose continuity could be the question. Dementia, upload, transformation, death are stages in a process, not events that either preserve or destroy …
Roads not taken You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity. (36%) · You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect. (29%) · You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now. (9%)
Distinctive · only 14% of schools agree (29/202)
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Loss of memory, of recognition, of the cognitive patterns that made the person — does this end the person, or merely the person you knew? The answer turns on what makes someone who they are.
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
On these views, the person their spouse married was never a fixed thing whose continuation could be tracked across time. There has always been a stream of experiences, a developing character, a construction. Dementia is one of the more visible changes in the process; the …
Roads not taken Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed. (36%) · The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's. (29%) · The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person. (9%)
26 mainstream positions
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed. 14% Could causation work backwards? Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural. 68% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction. 68% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description. 68% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation. 66% Can a civilization recover from collapse? Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial. 66% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current. 66% When does a person begin? A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. 54% What is marriage? Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. 54% Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally. 50% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for. 49% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer. 49% What is our place in nature? Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. 48% Should we colonize space? Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. 48% Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? Genetic modification is cultivation by other means. 48% Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems. 46% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical. 46% Does prayer change God's mind? If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next. 46% Are the dead morally present to the living? Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present. 44% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind. 32% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration. 32% What happens to "you" when you die? Death is genuinely the end. 30% Could an AI have a mind that matters? No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain. 30% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Trust expertise only insofar as it coheres with first-person experience. 17% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? What gets called 'revelation' is real direct experience — not a text. 17% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM has no first-person experience, so no knowing in the relevant sense. 17%
6 unaligned
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
← #141 A Letter Concerning Toleration All Works #143 Apologia Pro Vita Sua →