对休谟的《自然宗教对话录》的解读历来存在一个核心问题,即谁是其宗教观点代言人的问题。以史密斯为代表的学者主张斐罗代表休谟的宗教立场;以亨德尔、莱恩为代表的学者认为克里安提斯的观点体现了休谟的真实意图。实际上,休谟的宗教立场与其哲学立场紧密相关,既包含一种怀疑主义,也包含一种自然主义,二者并非相互对立。相应地,斐罗的宗教怀疑论和克里安提斯的自然主义有神论也并非互不相容,二者最终在恪守上帝存在这一宗教情感的层面达成一致,并分别从两个角度展示了休谟的宗教观。 There is always a central issue with Hume’s Reading of Natural Dialogue, which is the question of who is the spokesperson for his religious views. Scholars represented by Smith advocate that he represents Hume’s religious position; scholars such as Handel and Ryan think that Kryanite’s view embodies Hume’s true intention. In fact, Hume’s religious position is closely related to his philosophical position, which includes both skepticism and naturalism, and the two are not opposed to each other. Correspondingly, the religious skepticism of Philo and the naturalistic theism of Krytytis are not mutually exclusive. Both eventually reach an agreement on abiding by the religious sentiments of the existence of God and show them from two angles Hume’s Religious View.