In our life we are confronted with numerous alleged miracles, like miracle babies, miracle drugs or even inventions and products that are supposed to work miracles.
While this use of the term "miracle" is very broad, often arbitrary, and due to our linguistic usage, miracles embedded in religious context find a very different connotation and impact. Theistic religions are mainly based on miracles, rely on them, or use them to explain, convince and encourage belief in their God. Miracles thereby - should they really exist - evoke different reactions. While some see in miracles how their God manifests himself, others see - if at all - only unusual natural events. In philosophy, the religious use of miracles forms a problem that raises two different questions: What is a miracle? And: Can we ever have good reason to believe that a miracle has actually taken place?
These two questions were addressed by numerous philosophers and theologians, among them the famous Scottish philosopher, economist and historian David Hume. In his 1748 work An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, he presents both a definition of miracles and a critique of the credibility of reported miracles, which is until today often referenced in the scientific discussion about miracles. The aim of this paper is to answer the following questions: What is Hume’s argument concerning Miracles? What criticisms can be raised against his approach? And: Is Hume's position convincing? To answer these, the work will be divided into four different sections. The first segment consists of the introduction and is intended to provide a brief introduction and present the structure of this essay. In the second part, I portray Hume’s definition of miracles followed by his argumentation regarding the credibility of miracles testimonies. The third part contains various points of criticism, which have been expressed over the years. Finally, the results are evaluated, and it is answered to the third question mentioned above.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Hume’s “Of Miracles”
III. Critics
IV. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This paper aims to critically analyze David Hume’s philosophical argument against the credibility of miracles as presented in his work "An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding," while examining subsequent criticisms to determine the validity and coherence of his position.
- The historical and philosophical definition of miracles.
- Hume’s epistemological framework regarding experience and testimony.
- Mathematical and probabilistic rebuttals to Hume's skepticism.
- The relationship between scientific progress and the rejection of unprecedented events.
- Challenges to the circularity of Hume’s argumentation.
Excerpt from the Book
Hume’s “Of Miracles”
Hume begins his argument with reflections on experience and notes that experience is “our only guide in reasoning concerning matters of fact”. Even though experience is the key to knowledge and truth i.e. contingent claims about the world, this guide is not infallible. To demonstrate this, Hume gives the following example: We expect better weather in any week of June to be better than in December, but we might also be mistaken. Our experience leads us to expect a specific weather for both months, but we’ve also made contrary experiences that we consider but find them to be less likely to occur. He concludes that not all effects follow with equal certainty from their assumed causes. We can know or anticipate certain facts with greater certainty than others. Hume states: “A wise man (…) proportions his belief to the evidence.” A wise person must always believe the facts for which he has the best reasons and thus also the greatest certainty. If there are opposite experiences, these must be weighed against each other. A wise person considers which side is supported by the most evidence and therefore decides to belief in this one.
Summary of Chapters
I. Introduction: Outlines the problem of defining and believing in miracles and sets the essay's aim to evaluate Hume’s arguments and their subsequent critique.
II. Hume’s “Of Miracles”: Details Hume’s definition of a miracle as a violation of natural law and explains his probabilistic approach to why testimony can never rationally support them.
III. Critics: Examines counter-arguments against Hume, including Bayesian probability, concerns over scientific progress, and charges of circular reasoning.
IV. Conclusion: Summarizes the findings, noting that while Hume's approach is intuitive, it remains philosophically debated and lacks full conviction for many critics.
Keywords
David Hume, Miracles, Law of Nature, Testimony, Probability, Epistemology, Bayesian Analysis, Skepticism, Witness Reliability, Causality, Philosophy of Religion, Unprecedented Events, Scientific Progress, John Earman, Richard Swinburne.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper examines David Hume's philosophical critique of miracles, specifically analyzing his argument that testimony for a miracle can never be rationally believed.
What are the central themes explored?
The main themes include the definition of miracles, the reliability of human testimony, the role of experience in forming belief, and the probabilistic evaluation of evidence.
What is the research question addressed?
The core questions are: What is Hume’s argument concerning miracles, what are the common criticisms of this approach, and is his position ultimately convincing?
Which methodology does the author apply?
The author employs a philosophical and analytic approach, dissecting Hume’s text and contrasting it with the counter-arguments of other thinkers like Swinburne and Earman.
What does the main body of the text cover?
It provides an explanation of Hume's view on causality and testimony, followed by a critical review of challenges to his theory, such as the critique of his "Balance of Probabilities" argument.
Which fundamental keywords characterize this research?
Key terms include David Hume, Law of Nature, Miracles, Testimony, Probability, and Epistemology.
How does Hume define a miracle?
Hume defines a miracle as a transgression of a law of nature brought about by a particular volition of the deity or the interposition of some invisible agent.
Why do critics refer to Hume's argument as circular?
Critics argue that Hume assumes the absolute reliability of natural laws, which themselves are largely based on observational testimony, thereby presupposing the very thing he is trying to prove.
How is the "Lottery" example used in the critique?
The example is used to challenge the claim that unusual events are intrinsically unbelievable, arguing that some highly improbable events (like winning the lottery) are factually verified and rational to accept.
- Quote paper
- Liz Meyers (Author), 2023, Hume’s argument against miracles, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1559823
