This paper will demonstrate why Hume thinks accepting testimony about a miracle is unreasonable and why he is incorrect. It will do so by first presenting Hume's argument as to why miracles are improbable. Second it will present Hume's four main justifications for not accepting miracles. Finally it will present how Hume's justifications are incorrect.
Hume believes that accepting testimony about miracles is unreasonable because there is no imperative reason to believe in miracles. Our knowledge of miracles comes from the testimony of others, and since this a second hand experience one should not regard it as reputable compared to ones own experiences. () Hume concludes that beliefs should be proportioned to evidence. ()Thus in cases where all the evidence marks a distinct outcome one can be positive that that conclusion is correct and when there is evidence for and against a certain conclusion, one can only regard it wither a certain degree of probability, until one outweighs the other. Miracles by definition are singular events, that contradict the uniform laws of nature. () Therefore the whole concept of a miracle is a violation of all prior experiences. () Hence the probability that a miracle has occurred is in contradiction of all past experiences and should be judged as less probable. () Hume does not claim that miracles are impossible, but he states that the possibility of miracles occurring are such a low probability that one could rule them out as valid. () Our knowledge of miracles comes from the testimony of others, and since this a second hand experience one should not treat it as reliable compared to ones own experiences. ()
Thus Hume presents four main arguments as to why accepting testimonies of miracles i...
... middle of paper ...
... take an emergency landing. Does this mean that planes can never crash, or that there is not enough evidence of planes crashing? No, because though very plane this person has been on has bought them to their destination safely it does not go to say that it is highly improbable that it will never happen. The same goes for miracles, most people live their everyday lives with no miracles, but that does not mean a once a miracles does occur that it is unreasonable to believe such testimonies.
In conclusion, Hume's justifications make it clear as to why he believes that accepting testimonies about miracles are unreasonable, but he fails to asses and consider other points of view and doesn't make a convincing case for his views. Therefore it is clear the Hume's argument is unreasonable and testimonies of miracles can be treated as a possibility that should be accepted.
The article Reasonable Doubt by Alice Camille presents reasons for defending the actions of Thomas, the apostle of Jesus Christ, and relates the factors that not only made Thomas doubt his faith, but the testimonies of the resurrection witnessed by Thomas himself. The article also discusses evidence demanded by Thomas to prove that Jesus had risen from the dead.
David Hume makes a strong affirmation in section IV of an Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Hume states, "I shall venture to affirm as a general proposition, which admits of no exception, that the knowledge of this relation is not, in any instance attained by reasonings a priori; but entirely from experience." In this statement, when discussing "knowledge of this relation," Hume is referring to the relation between cause and effect. This argument can easily be dismissed as skeptical, for it puts all knowledge of this sort in doubt. However, Hume does not hastily doubt that this knowledge is not a priori, as a skeptic would. Instead Hume offers a sound argument as to why cause and effect knowledge can not be a priori, and thus his argument is not skeptical at all.
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.
David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion provide conflicting arguments about the nature of the universe, what humans can know about it, and how their knowledge can affect their religious beliefs. The most compelling situation relates to philosophical skepticism and religion; the empiricist character, Cleanthes, strongly defends his position that skepticism is beneficial to religious belief. Under fire from an agnostic skeptic and a rationalist, the empiricist view on skepticism and religion is strongest in it’s defense. This debate is a fundamental part of the study of philosophy: readers must choose their basic understanding of the universe and it’s creator, upon which all other assumptions about the universe will be made. In this three-sided debate, Hume’s depiction of an empiricist is clearly the winner.
... 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.
On the other hand, Hume entertains the situation that “it is God himself, … which we erroneously attribute to our own power and efficacy” (47). Hume argues that “there must arrise a strong suspicion … (when we arrive at) conclusions so extraordinary, and so remote from common life and experience” (48). Further, Hume illustrates that no matter how ignorant we are “of the manner in which bodies operate on each other” we are equally ignorant of the supreme mind; we should reject the more unintelligible prospect (48).
Kant found many problems within Hume’s account. Through his endeavors to prove that metaphysics is possible, and his analyzing of causality, Kant solved the problems he saw within Hume’s account. Specifically, in the Prolegomena, Kant stated that Hume “justly maintains that we cannot comprehend by reason the possibility of causality.”(57) Kant also attacked Hume’s ideas by describing Hume’s treatment of the concept of causality to be “a bastard of the imagination, impregnated by experience.”(5) Kant succeeded in re- establishing the objectivity of causality, a task that Hume had rejected as impossible.
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. ***)
...place. If both definitions of ‘cause’ are necessary for a full understanding of the word, and an absolute reading becomes problematic and unnecessary, then neither Robinson’s nor Garrett’s interpretations are correct. If my account of Hume’s mitigated skepticism is correct, then I see no need to go any further than the Enquiry to understand Hume’s theory of causation. As a philosopher, Hume recognized the constraints of our reasoning, and as a man, he was able to give an explanation for our actions.
Furthermore, God’s demonstration of his miracles and acts of power are often a type of apologetic argument. Although, throughout the Bible God demonstrates the working of his miracles from the Old Testament through the New Testament. Two major points of Gods power and miracles that are challenged are that God is a “living God” and that he resurrected Jesus Christ. With a surmounting amount of evidence and eyewitness accounts people still attempt to dismantle God’s acts of power and miracles. subsequently creating an apologetic argument.
The way in which a concept comes to exist in one’s mind is itself a concept worth examining. Many philosophers have looked for the origin of thought in the human mind, and many different reasons for this origin have been put forth. As a philosopher, it is only fitting that Hume would propose his own framework for human thinking. For Hume, perceptions are developed either as the understanding of the outside world, or as recollections of these events or alterations of these memories within the mind¹. This distinction is important, as it allows Hume to differentiate perceptions as true or false notions. With this, Hume puts forward his concepts of belief and fiction. Belief is defined in perceptions that one, simply put, believes, and fiction encompasses the thoughts that are not believed. These definitions seem redundant when viewed as so, but further examination of Hume’s framework sheds light on the meaning of what he attempts to establish concerning belief.
In other words, it is a gap between faith and scientific reasoning. In modern medicine, a miracle is described as any occurrence where a higher power, God, for example, takes over and intervenes benevolently in the fate of the patient.3 The doctor, along with everyone else, can only marvel. As a generality, it can be said that miracles are modern examples of the continuing contradiction between faith and reason.
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.
William Paley and David Hume’s argument over God’s existence is known as the teleological argument, or the argument from design. Arguments from design are arguments concerning God or some type of creator’s existence based on the ideas of order or purpose in universe. Hume takes on the approach of arguing against the argument of design, while Paley argues for it. Although Hume and Paley both provide very strong arguments, a conclusion will be drawn at the end to distinguish which philosophiser holds a stronger position. Throughout this essay I will be examining arguments with reference to their work from Paley’s “The Watch and the Watchmaker” and Hume’s “The Critique of the Teleological Argument”.
Upon reading Will to Believe, there is no doubt we will all begin to question how we’ve gotten to our beliefs and why we believe what we do. William James argues against forced beliefs and expresses the importance of choice. The idea of choice is one I strongly agree with. Although we are easily influenced by others, when it comes to beliefs free will must come into play. As far as the science method, which I have discussed, a belief is just as valid whether there is evidence or not because most scientific methods will never be one hundred percent proven and they will change over