David Hume is considered one of the most influential critics of rational theology in the modern era, and Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion is considered his most important work in this field. However, there is no consensus on Hume's final position on religion, God, and natural theology. Many commentators have considered the criticisms raised in this work as evidence of Hume's atheism or agnosticism, while others have emphasized the existence of theistic and faith-based elements in his thought. The present study, using a descriptive-analytical method and focusing on examining the structure of the work's dialogue and analyzing the roles of the characters Philo, Cleanthes, and Demea, seeks to reinterpret Hume's position on rational theology. The main question of the article is whether Hume's criticisms are directed at the principle of theism or at the efforts of theologians to rationalize religious doctrines? The findings of the research show that Hume, rather than seeking to deny the existence of God, criticizes the epistemological and argumentative foundations of rational theology and considers the ability of reason to achieve certain knowledge of the divine essence and attributes to be limited. Also, the analysis of the text of the dialogues shows that Hume distinguishes between true religion and historical and institutional forms of religion, and his main opposition is directed at theological dogma and theological systems prevalent in Christianity of his time. Accordingly, the present article defends a reading that considers Hume not as a full-fledged atheist, but as a skeptical thinker who uses the critique of rational theology to refine religious understanding and limit the claims of theoretical reason about divine matters.