Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
David hume causality
Critical assessment of miracles
On miracles by david hume summary
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: David hume causality
Assess the strengths and weakness of David Hume’s arguments in Of Miracles
In this essay the strengths and weaknesses of David Hume’s argument in Of Miracles will be considered and discussed. The writer will be scrutinizing Hume’s definition of a miracle in order to come to the conclusion that in fact Hume does not make a strong argument.
Hume’s definition of a miracle is that it is an event that is not explicable by natural or scientific causes and is therefore considered a very rare event, which is more probable that the testimony is false than that the miracle actually happened (Davies, 1993, p190). David Hume was an empiricist meaning that he believed that all knowledge came through sense driven experience (EHU 7.1.4/62). For example,
…show more content…
Hume questions how humans belief in events develop rather than looking into the nature of how miracles come about into a society. One of his main arguments for this is that the only evidence those who claim a miracle have happened comes from eye witness testimony and that this testimony is just a sort of experience and therefore, belief in miracles is grounded in experience as much as peoples belief in the laws of nature for example. Hume is only interested in questioning the grounds in which people say miracles happen, and seems to brush over factors such as quantity of testimony and time …show more content…
Humans tend to look at factors surrounding the event such as how many people saw it and if the event seems probable or not. Rationally humans are more likely to believe events such as somebody having an illness like cancer and being free from it shortly after being diagnosed without treatment as opposed to someone saying they saw a flying pig in town. This is due to the one event being more probable than another, as humans have heard and read about other people being free from illnesses shortly after being diagnosed before and therefore make the sense driven connection Hume discusses
In explaining Hume’s critique of the belief in miracles, we must first understand the definition of a miracle. The Webster Dictionary defines a miracle as: a supernatural event regarded as to define action, one of the acts worked by Christ which revealed his divinity an extremely remarkable achievement or event, an unexpected piece of luck. Therefore, a miracle is based on one’s perception of past experiences, what everyone sees. It is based on an individuals own reality, and the faith in which he/she believes in, it is based on interior events such as what we are taught, and exterior events, such as what we hear or see first hand. When studying Hume’s view of a miracle, he interprets or defines a miracle as such; a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, an event which is not normal to most of mankind. Hume explains this point brilliantly when he states, “Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it has ever happened in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man seemingly in good health should die on a sudden.” (Hume p.888) Hume states that this death is quite unusual, however it seemed to happen naturally. He could only define it as a true miracle if this dead man were to come back to life. This would be a miraculous event because such an experience has not yet been commonly observed. In which case, his philosophical view of a miracle would be true. Hume critiques and discredits the belief in a miracle merely because it goes against the laws of nature.
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...
According to our course textbook, “The new critical spirit (of questioning laws and rules formerly accepted as true without proof) led the thinkers of the Enlightenment to doubt the literal truth of the Bible and to dismiss miracles as incompatible with what science teaches about the regularity of nature” (CP 62). This new way of thinking, reasoning, testing what led the Enlightenment thinkers to question the status quo. Thomas Paine was one whose work and writing was influenced by the new views of science and the universe. Paine questioned old superstition and doctrines that could not be proven with evidence. It was the new discoveries of this time that gave people like Paine the confidence in their own minds and thinking.
Hume strongly depends on the laws of nature to disprove miracles because it is something that he knows will hold up through experience. Even if something happens that is extremely rare, for example, snow in June, we can disprove this as a miracle because it has been our experience in life that the weather is never constant and under extreme conditions we can get very cold weather during the summer. He is so skeptical against miracles, that he says he cannot even believe someone claiming to have witnessed a miracle, without first examining their reason for making such a claim.
Hume states that proof derives from past experience, and probability is the result of opposed experiences, “And as the evidence, derived from witnesses and human testimony, is founded on past experience, so it varies with the experience, and is regarded either as a proof or a probability, according as the conjunction between any particular kind of report” (Enquiry X.1, p. 73-74). To Hume, the probability of something occurring in contradiction to all uniform experiences must always be judged to be less than the probability that the senses are deceiving ...
In this section, Hume begins by categorizing knowledge into types: relations of ideas and matters of fact. Relations of ideas are knowable a priori and negating such a statement would lead to a contradiction, and matters of fact are knowable a posteriori, or through experience, and the negation would not be a contradiction. While relations of ideas are generally used in mathematics, matters of fact are significant in determining how one experiences the world; the beliefs an individual has are formed through his experience, thus making cognition a matter of fact.... ... middle of paper ...
Anti theodicy is the argument that it is wrong to seek theodicies, that is, it is wrong to seek answers to the problem of evil. Anti theodicy is prompted by the religious effects of theodicizing. Theodicizing has been accused of risking our faith in God by questioning Him, wasting time, reducing divine mystery in case we succeed in understanding the problem of evil, and increasing self-satisfaction when we realize that there are reasons behind the evil and we stop fighting against it. It says we should not try to seek the hidden ways of God but rather try to find the path that we shall walk on when evil attacks. What anti theodicies fail
Unlike rationalists, empiricists believe that sense perception is the main source of knowledge. John Locke explained this by dividing ideas into 2 parts: 1) simple, and 2) complex. Simple ideas are based only on perception, like color, size, shape, etc. Complex ideas are formed when simple ideas are combined.
... and faith are not based solely on empirical evidence and absolute proof. It is the will to believe, the desire to see miracles that allows the faithful, to believe in the existence of miracles, not on any kind of sufficient evidence but on the belief that miracles can happen. Rather than Hume’s premise that a wise man proportions his belief in response to the eviddence, maybe a wise man would be better off, tempering his need for empirical evidence against his faith and his will to belief.
In the selection, ‘Skeptical doubts concerning the operations of the understanding’, David Hume poses a problem for knowledge about the world. This question is related to the problem of induction. David Hume was one of the first who decided to analyze this problem. He starts the selection by providing his form of dividing the human knowledge, and later discusses reasoning and its dependence on experience. Hume states that people believe that the future will resemble the past, but we have no evidence to support this belief. In this paper, I will clarify the forms of knowledge and reasoning and examine Hume’s problem of induction, which is a challenge to Justified True Belief account because we lack a justification for our beliefs.
In Appendix I., Concerning Moral Sentiment, David Hume looks to find a place in morality for reason, and sentiment. Through, five principles he ultimately concludes that reason has no place within the concept of morality, but rather is something that can only assist sentiment in matters concerning morality. And while reason can be true or false, those truths or falsities apply to facts, not to morality. He then argues morals are the direct result of sentiment, or the inner feeling within a human being. These sentiments are what intrinsically drive and thus create morality within a being. Sentiments such as beauty, revenge, pleasure, pain, create moral motivation, and action, and are immune to falsity and truth. They are the foundation for which morals are built, and exist themselves apart from any reasoning. Thesis: In moral motivation, the role of sentiment is to drive an intrinsically instilled presence within us to examine what we would deem a moral act or an immoral act, and act accordingly, and accurately upon the sentiments that apply. These sentiments may be assisted by reasons, but the reason alone does not drive us to do what we would feel necessary. They can only guide us towards the final result of moral motivation which (by now it’s painfully clear) is sentiment.
David Hume was a Scottish philosopher known for his ideas of skepticism and empiricism. Hume strived to better develop John Locke’s idea of empiricism by using a scientific study of our own human nature. We cannot lean on common sense to exemplify human conduct without offering any clarification to the subject. In other words, Hume says that since human beings do, as a matter of fact, live and function in this world, observation of how humans do so is imminent. The primary goal of philosophy is simply to explain and justify the reasoning of why we believe what we do.
But before we discuss this idea further, let’s firstly recapitulate Hume’s position on induction and the arguments against the event of a miracle. Hume’s idea of induction is an argument for human justification of beliefs. He suggests human beliefs are based on experience; that the sun may not rise tomorrow is logically possible but in reality logic can’t really prove it will. So, Hume comes up with his own argument; that we use our experience of the sun having risen every day in the past,... ...
Inductive reasoning can be quickly summarized as a method through which a conclusion is drawn from particular cases; this conclusion may be applied to another specific case or generalized. All of our conclusions about the world around us, which we rely on daily without question, are dependent on this process. The expectation that our house will not cave in, that water will come from the faucet when turned on, that we will wake the next morning, are all propositions extrapolated from inductive arguments. Hume in his work ‘An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding’, after challenging the possibility of knowledge of cause and effect, posits that “The conclusions we draw from … experience are not based on reasoning or on any process of the understanding”.
Empiricism (en- peiran; to try something for yourself): The doctrine that all knowledge must come through the senses; there are no innate ideas born within us that only require to be remembered (ie, Plato). All knowledge is reducible to sensation, that is, our concepts are only sense images. In short, there is no knowledge other than that obtained by sense observation.