…and for some rather good reasons:

[Hume] was…deeply and systematically concerned with issues and problems of religion — especially as they concern the corruption of both philosophy and morality. These themes and issues inform much of what motivates and directs Hume's thought. They constitute, moreover, the strong, sturdy spine of Hume's thought and his intellectual achievement. The whole body of Hume's thought, like the Treatise itself, is to a considerable extent shaped, animated and directed by these core concerns and issues. Harris's study systematically obscures and distorts these features of Hume's fundamental motivation and thought and, as such, to use Harris's own language, does "harm" and poses a real "danger" to our understanding and appreciation of Hume's life, work, and achievement.

It's a bit astonishing that Cambridge University Press would publish something so misguided.

UPDATE:  It has been pointed out to me that Professor Harris wrote a complimentary but critical review of Paul Russell's book on Hume making the case for the centrality of religion, and critique of religion, to Hume's corpus. That review is not, alas, on-line, but can be found in Philosophical Books 50 (January 2009):  38-46.   So this is clearly a fault line in Hume scholarship, though the  Russell position seems to me the more compelling, but readers interested in this debate should consult Prof. Harri's review of Russell.  (Recall also this earlier review notice.)