The problem of miracles is an ancient one that has persisted for most of
human history, but that has been addressed with some depth only in the last few
centuries. The great empiricist philosopher David Hume was one of the first to present an
analysis of miracles that tried to explain why they are created (by human beings
themselves, in Hume’s opinion) and why people are so ready to believe in them. This is
an important field of study, as with greater knowledge of the character of physical law,
one finds more and more (rather than less) accounts of miracles being touted as
exceptions to natural laws. Hume’s ideas on the matter are extremely illuminating and
amazingly enough, are fairly universal in their applicability as regards both time and
place.
In his writings about this subject1, Hume first constructs a logical
framework within which he can then begin to attack the widespread belief in miracles
(Part I, p.534-537). He then proceeds to use this to explain why he thinks that miracles
should not be believed. Further he uses his knowledge of human motivation to lend more
weight to this argument. It must be noted here that nowhere does Hume attack miracles in
themselves. Rather, he attacks our belief of miracles on the grounds of insufficient
evidence for their existence. This also leads him to the conclusion that miracles cannot be
the basis of a system of religion. The argument is outlined in what follows.
In the context of Hume’s philosophy, there are only two kinds of
knowledge – relations of ideas and matters of fact. It is obvious that miracles must fall
into the latter category. Since experience is the basis of reasoning concerning matters of
1 Roger Ariew & Eric Watkins. Modern Philosophy: An antholog...
... middle of paper ...
...igion based on faith (which is the only basis that remains once
reason is dealt with), by remarking that faith is entirely “contrary to custom and
experience”.
The process of reasoning that Hume follows to reach his conclusion is
very logical and is devoid of any serious flaws. The psychological explanations given by
him (argument 2 above) greatly supports his arguments and gives us an insight into the
reason why miracles (in some form or the other) persist in such diverse times and places
and yet seem so similar. (The insight being that the human psychology changes very
slowly at the fundamental level and spawns the same chimaeras over and over). Overall,
this is a brilliantly constructed argument and yet there is nothing subtle or obscure about
6
it. So, I have to say that I agree with his conclusion and also (for the most part) his views
on religion.
7
It is interesting that four accounts that have shown significant divergence to this point suddenly agree almost totally in all but the smallest of details. It is as if the four strands of thought cross at exactly this point. I suspect that it is also the Spirit ensuring that the miraculous part of this miracle is well attested. The accounts are sufficiently similar that I shall break from the previous pattern and discuss the four accounts together rather than sequentially.
One of the most important aspects of Hume's argument is his understanding of probability. Hume states that belief is often a result of probability in that we believe an event that has occurred most often as being most likely. In relation to miracles this suggests that miraculous events should be labelled as a miracle only where it would be even more unbelievable for it not to be. This is Hume's argument in Part 1 Of Miracles, he states that if somebody tells you that a miracle has occurred you do not have to physically go out and look at the evidence to determine it, all you really need to do is consider the concept of the miracle and if it is a violation of the laws of nature, we have to reason in acco...
Overall, I agree with the arguments she presents in her article and find some of them correspond very well with the conclusion I had written about.
To conclude, even though I disagree with the way Fitzgerald uses some pieces of her evidence, her argument is comprehensive and persuasive. She excellently used various rhetorical devices and plentiful evidence.
keeps the reader interested in his topic. He addresses the opposition quite well which adds a large
In conclusion, From all the points I have brought up it is easy to see that
...e contradicts himself when it comes to his explanations against the rationalisation of miracles. He insists that miracles do not actually happen, because they go against the laws of nature. But also, there is no probability of them actually occurring and that we, as human beings, put too much faith in miracles, which is wrong. These points in themselves are confusing and cumbersome. If miracles were actually against the laws of nature, then Hume’s definition of those laws of nature should be redefined, or his acceptance of miracles should be re-evaluated. If miracles are possible, then any sort of concrete evidence to support that miracle should be enough to prove its existence. There is no need to go through a list of criteria that contradicts itself.
In this paper I will look at David Hume’s (1711-1776) discussion from the An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Of Miracles regarding whether it is a reasonable assumption to believe in the existence of miracles. I will first discuss why the existence of miracles matters and how miracles relate to our understanding of the laws of nature. Secondly, I will look at how Hume argues that it is never reasonable to believe in miracles. I will then provide objections to this argument which I feel support the idea that belief is not only reasonable but a necessary condition for a faithful life.
Hume distinguishes two categories into which “all the objects of human reason or enquiry” may be placed into: Relations of Ideas and Matters of Fact (15). In regards to matters of fact, cause and effect seems to be the main principle involved. It is clear that when we have a fact, it must have been inferred...
Faith and imagination is all about truth and the belief in a higher power beyond man himself. Faith and imagination binds the power of God’s existence. However, in lack of evidence and that which is unforeseen; consequently, if we know the value of life and understand that which is right and wrong; it truly acknowledges God’s presence among us. when people reference a “miracle” has happened; most people that hold faith as a powerful source don’t just assume the miracle came out of nowhere without some concept of a divine attribute connected to faith. A miracle is not an act based purely on a violation of natural law, but an act of God’s law and his true existence. And if man is to find his true purpose of his existence and fulfilling his life, he must adopt faith and reason.
In Part II of David Hume’s Dialogues of Natural Religion, Demea remarks that the debate is not about whether or not God exists, but what the essence of God is. (pg.51) Despite this conclusion in Part II, in his introduction to the Dialogues Martin Bell remarks that the question of why something operates the way it does is quite different from the question why do people believe that it operates the way it does. (pg. 11) This question, the question of where a belief originates and is it a valid argument, is much of the debate between Hume’s three characters in the Dialogues. (pg. ***)
...m convictions and evidence that cannot be justified by argument. In a simple and assertive way of putting it, Hume showed us that common sense and science are matters of faith. The faith which Hume so greatly defends, we have no way of avoiding or resisting. It is fair to conclude, that while Hume attempts to refute the existence of a miracle, whether through the induction theory or his personal, individual opinion, Hume’s conclusions tend to fail in a range of aspects, but the most intriguing relates to his inadequate proposal and later the revision of a law of nature. He forgets the concept that if ever a more accurate explanation is found, there would be no reason to view miracles as a violation of the laws of nature. Who’s to say miracles need to violate the laws of nature? Can’t unexpected, everyday events, which we live through, account to be miraculous?
Taliaferro, C. (1990). Water into Wine: An Investigation of the Concept of Miracle. Modern Theology, 6(4), 414-415. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
During the time of Jesus, God’s and demigods were believed to have healed the sick and raised people from the dead. Some believed famous and virtuous men could calm storms, chase away pestilence, and abide by greetings as gods. Christian authors viewed the miracles of Jesus as works of love and mercy showing compassion for a sinful and suffering humanity. Each miracle involves specific teachings and they were an important component of Jesus’ divinity and the dual natures of Jesus as God and ...
...tion of what he really thinks. Just as we believe the sun will come up, and set down every single day we are apart of this earth, our belief of that theory cannot be certain; faith in the same outcomes has to be present in ones soul. Almost every aspect of Hume's ideas is composed of complex thoughts that are formed from simple ideas and impressions seen every single day “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” (Hume)