Introduction Hume argues that there is lack of evidence to support claims of an afterlife or dreaded punishment. Such prediction is only based on imagination. Hume’s argument is based on past experiences and what nature provides as evidence. He argues that priests and poets have no justification to forge the probability of future events without supporting it with what is practiced or observed. Hume recognizes that the role of religion is to regulate passions and ambitions. It creates order and tolerance as a result of the regulation. Criticism based on observation and practice Hume empiricism on the existence on a Supreme Intelligence is based on the fact that existing things are perfectly arranged. Hume discusses that Natural Religion is less likely to be corrupted. It cannot corrupt an individual. The more someone considers common sense the more he reveres the Supreme Being. It is discovered that when one uses reasoning the more “one pays profound adoration to the Divine Being” (Hume “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part 12”). He dismisses those philosophers of the new age who doubt the existence of a Supreme Intelligence. They do not derive their doubt from nature. According to Hume, there is enough evidence found in many species that support existence of a Supreme Intelligence. They existed even before the changes that led to perfection had an effect. There was still a cause that could be traced back to a Supreme Intelligence. When religion is joined by ambitious groups, suffering becomes inevitable. Hume discusses that misery experienced in religious times is the effect of religion departing from its objective. Religion is supposed to “infuse the spirit of temperance, order, and obedience” (Hume “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part 12”). Hume is against the philosophy which dismisses the importance of morality to mankind. Hume’s pragmatism is that morality should not be based on the fear of future punishment. There is no proof that there is an afterlife, reward or punishment. However, morality is good for human habitation. Hume doubts the effectiveness of using oaths in courts and political occasions. The oaths are disregarded by many people as mere hypocrisy. These oaths are based on the fact that a Deity will enforce justice in the afterlife. This cannot be proved from observation or practice. Those who are truthful or false can be observed with no distinction of divine justice taking place. Hume considers projections of a state in which nature will be considered perfect as imaginative. The prediction of an afterlife where mankind is as moral as the gods is considered as an imagination of priests and poets. According to Hume, man has not travelled outside this world to find proof to support such claims. Man has no ability to contact the gods on such matters. Hume discusses that the intelligence of a workman is derived from his production. According to Hume, philosophers should use a similar example such as that of the workman to derive qualities of the Supreme Being. Hume discusses that “from the order of the work, you infer that there must have been a project and forethought” (159). The forethought should be based on what can be seen. Hume’s empiricism is that priests and poets cannot observe nature and proof that the gods have an intention of creating another world apart from the one that already exists. Hume discusses that nature shows some degree of wisdom and good