AKG wrote:

Did Hume really criticise Aquinas's version or a strawman that looks like Payley's?

Payley's. Here's a thorough analysis of what Hume criticised and how https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Hume.htm

Hume wrote literary dialogues and he added remarks that make it unclear what his own position was. The analysis concludes, "Philo wins because Hume writes it that way. We might just as well say that Moby Dick proves whales are evil... Hume makes Demea (the defender of the design argument) a simpleton instead of having a foil on a par with, say, Thomas Aquinas or Augustine." 

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

I have heard certain Platonists, Hermeticists, and the like argue that human collectivities often bring into being psychic or subtle entities that represent these communities, but I doubt this is what you mean. So you will have to explain your meaning more fully.

This is pretty close to what I in fact mean. I can imagine myself saying "Society is the sum of individuals" but when I say it, I mean it in the total sense, i.e. that society is analysable like a macroindividual whose constitution has more to it than what directly meets the eye.

Like in case of an ordinary individual, society has its history and future, life and death, body and mind. Society has its head (leadership), arms (civil servants and law enforcement) and the rest of the organs that make up its body. It has its ideals upon which it builds its future. If the ideals lose their significance or are crushed by some force, society will become as if ill, it will lose its hopes for the future and may die. 

In individual human beings, there is a psychological function called subconsciousness. Similarly, members of society share a collective mental ballast. Some aspects of the ballast help the individuals thrive, when they rely on it for self-identity and for living in collective harmony. Other aspects of it may cause some individuals rebel, when they feel traditional or habitual manners either too limiting or meaningless.

In my view, both the disputes over marriage (the nature of the disputes is definitional, i.e. people can't agree what the word means, and even whether it has a meaning at all) and the practice of marriage in the Occident (close to half, in some countries more than half, of children are born out of wedlock) demonstrate that the meaning of marriage has been lost. Marriage has become a burden rather than a blessing. So many people find the institution meaningless that it has become possible for subgroups to attack it and demolish it.

In my view, the point

This may test some people's tolerance, but Islam happens to have its own very solid classical theist tradition too. For example, the famous Evangelical debater William Lane Craig has a fine history of encounters with Muslim debaters, and Muslims come across as more consistently monotheistic.

The best classical theist authority within Islam is Al-Ghazali, both as a starting point and as a subject of advanced study. He is not just a name among others, but a truly gigantic practical scholar who adequately systematised the entire Western and Islamic philosophical thought that had preceded him. On top of this, his own insights are veritable revelations that opened new paths in both philosophy and theology of Islam. As a theologian, he argued for the normalisation of the Sufi movement on both philosophical and scriptural grounds. 

A good grasp of the style and method of Al-Ghazali is provided by The Just Balance, a brief overview of the aspects of the syllogistic reasoning.

And here's an article by Aaron Hughes on what Al-Ghazali had to say about the relationships of mental world and the physical world http://www.ghazali.org/articles/hughes.pdf

For example,

Aaron Hughes wrote:

Against the philosophers, Ghazali claims that the imaginative faculty is both primary and superior to the rational faculty because it is responsible for the creation of images (muthul, sing. mithâl) that enable the embodied individual to perceive the imperceptible and to express the inexpressible. [...]

A world cannot exist without its display or without meaningful articulations. In the world of Neoplatonism—the ontological system to which Ghazali subscribed—these articulations occur within an emanative framework, wherein images issue ontically from a nonmaterial source. Within this framework sense phenomena are necessary conditions for our knowledge of both the transcendence of the world and what is transcendent to the world. From the embodied human perspective, Neoplatonic articulation

…