I did not say that Hume’s arguments are contradictory due to contradictions with science, but due to their own internal inconsistencies, like his assertions that the self does not exist.
Hume did not say that the self did not exist; instead, he conflated it with one’s impressions and ideas. After all, what is “the self” without impressions and ideas? It would seem that it would just be an oblivion. In other words, the mind does not have impressions and ideas, but that it those ideas and impressions and their interconnection.
Then why didn’t he publish them?
As to your questions about why I think he has lead people to Hell, I can only sit here and wonder how you fail to connect the dots between denying the existence of God, denying the validity of reason, and denying the very existence of the Self on one hand and on the other the general nihilism that permeates so much of the modern depressive mindset and the rise of anti-Christian thought.
The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion is a masterpiece. Hume does counter most arguments given to support teleological design and traditional theism (as represented by the character of Demea). Hume is more like a pitcher who has pitched the duration of the game and not allowed a run while striking out 12, rather than some “local drunk high on pot engaging in navel gazing auguries”.
No, you did not understand my response, since it concerns the number of the people who were damned by him.
I will contend that Hume’s skepticism for religion is rather mild as he only had an aversion towards “popular superstition” and obfuscatory metaphysical theories and was not a vociferous anti-atheist. Traditional orthodoxy was often the object of his scorn and criticism, and he flippantly treated the most sacrosanct of dogmas, but he did have some respect for natural theology (which ostensibly is not influenced by religious dogma and distant enough from “popular superstition”).
So tell me how has someone like Hume has caused the damnation of more souls than good NFL quarterbacks? You are the one making a qualitative claim about the number of souls Hume has lead to damnation, but that is directly related to his influence on the general populace and someone such as Russell Wilson has more immediate and direct influence. Couldn’t you make the connect that people like him draw people away from attending religious services? Yes, one can enjoy an NFL broadcast and attend a religious service, but all else being equal, one can the NFL reduces the chance of attending a service. Maybe Tim Tebow encouraged more people to be religious with his overt and gaudy displays of his faith, or his faith could be so off putting.
Ironically, the number of souls that have be lost to apostasy and perdition due to Hume’s published work is “incalculable” but I doubt it would be immense. In a more facetious way, I can claim that Aaron Rodgers, Russell Wilson, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and Colin Kaepernick have caused the damnation of many souls, too, because they are talented enough to create an engrossing and magnificent spectacle that it would prevent some people from attending Mass (and thus committing a mortal sin).
I mentioned Charles Darwin, since he too can be considered an influence that has lead to the damnation of souls, and most likely, his indirectly influence had a stronger influence on religious disbelief than Hume. A Darwinian account of biology allows one to dispose of divine providence by providing a theoretical framework where the features of all terrestrial life, including humans, is the contingent consequence of the processes of natural history. It may not be tantamount to atheism, but it does give a stronger impression of the absence of divine providence in the realm of biology than any intellectual argument against the existence of God. Perhaps, Ludwig Boltzmann can be such an influence too, although in the molecular realm, by providing a similar but more quantitatively rigorous framework, showing that macroscopic processes can be understood as the consequence of stochastic molecular dynamics.
Moreover, secular philosophy does not uniquely promote “depression” (your words). About a year ago, I attended several sessions (for a religious course) with a friend hosted by a conservative priest (that description is not adequate but I have to be vague in order to maintain our anonymity) and his presentation on mortal sin made me feel dejected and apathetic (although I did not lose my equanimity, but I lost most of my spiritual zeal) along with other things. It gave me the impression that God is petty, and that my sincerity would not suffice, so instead of being scrupulous, I just became apathetic. Furthermore, I found him inflexible. I consciously thought about walking away from Church in order to be true to myself and maintain some personal contentment. Another friend told me that he a polarizing person as the people who disagreed with him would likely avoid him and the parish, but my friend respected him for his authentic zeal and devotion even though my friend did not usually agree with his approach. There is a selection bias for those attending, since they presumably like him. I suppose that some people admire him because he is the type of person who has the confidence that he is conveying “the truth” by espousing unpalatable Church teachings and that the consequences of doing so will ultimately be salutary since it would illuminate “the truth” to others and result in conversion and admonishment.
