Introduction In his An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume establishes a set of criteria determining whether one should believe a testimony claiming a miracle has occurred. He argues that, unless it would be more miraculous for the testifier to lie, one should not accept such testimony. I argue that, due to Hume’s premise defining “miracle”, his argument is not sound. I then consider a possible response regarding probability on Hume’s behalf, and briefly reply. Hume’s Argument: Against Testimony Establishing Miracles Hume, in Enquiry 10, claims that “no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the [testimony’s]… falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish” (77). He derives this conclusion from two premises. As the first premise states, “the evidence [of a miracle], resulting from the testimony, admits of a diminution, greater or less, in proportion as the fact is more or less unusual” (75). In other words, …show more content…
Relations of ideas are “either intuitively or demonstrably certain” (15), and are not dependent on anything in the physical world. Mathematic principles, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, are included in this category. Miracles, because they are not immediately certain, nor independent from the physical world, cannot be labelled as relations of ideas, and are more consistent with matters of fact. These matters of fact are such that “[the] contrary of every matter of fact is still possible” (15), and have more to do with experience. Furthermore, every matter of fact we know or think we know is based on causal relations. For example, if I see a glass of water on a table, I assume that, at some point, someone poured water into the glass and placed it on the table. However, Hume claims, this assumption is flawed, because matters of fact are not, according to him, based on
I will begin by talking about the miracles and God’s message to the Sages. Then I will discuss why this seemingly simple and uninteresting argument meant so much to these sages and how they are so steadfast in their opinion that they contradict God with his own words. My next argument is that
In David Hume’s essay, Why Does God Let People Suffer, he allows the reader to question if God exists in the world we live in with all the pain and suffering that goes on. Hume suggests that an all powerful God, such as the one most believe in, would not allow a world to exist with this much pain and suffering that goes on daily. Moreover, Hume basically argues that the existence of God is something that cannot be proven in the way in which scientists look for and gather proof about other scientific issues. In the following essay, I will demonstrate how David Hume feels that there is a God despite all the suffering and pain that exists in our world. “Is the World, considered in general, and as it appears to us in this life, different from what a Man or such a limited being would, beforehand, expect from a very powerful, wise, and benevolent Deity?” Additionally, Hume argues for the existence of an omnipotent God. According to the author, a world with this much evil in it, one can’t logically assume that there exists an all powerful God that knows everything. Interestingly, Hume simply argues that we can’t infer that there is a God that exists who is all knowing and all powerful with the tremendous amounts of evil that exists in the world. More importantly, Hume speculates on the creation of the universe. One hypothesis contends that the universe was created without good or malice. In other words, according to Hume, our universe was more likely created by something other than a God with good intentions. However, throughout the essay Hume presents arguments for the existence of God and against the existence of God. Hume further argues that humans would be able to comprehend an omniscient G...
Hume supports his claim with two arguments. Firstly, he states that when we reflect on our thoughts, they always become simple ideas that we copied from a first-hand experience of something, thus the idea has been copie...
middle of paper ... ... The operations of our own mind have created this idea of God, which rebuts Descartes’ argument that we have knowledge of the external world because of God. Descartes would argue that Humes’ idea of God is natural and never derived from impressions. Hume’ consequently has the better argument, claiming that the idea of God is actually based on ideas of perfection and infinity is inferred from the ideas of imperfection and finitude.
In order to be considered a non-evidentialist, one must believe that actual evidence is not required for all of our beliefs. Pascal believ...
So why does the existence of miracles have any meaning at all? Belief in miracles helps to bring a sense of the divine existence of God to those who believe in a material way. Miracles are a way for signs from God to be transferred to mankind, in a way that we are able to understand. These miracles or signs from God can help to show divine favour, and to support our moral beliefs and ideology, to let us know that we are on the path of righteousness for those who believe. But what then, constitutes a miracle? A miracle, according to Hume, is a violation of the laws of nature, something that cannot happen, but does. (Hume, 1777,E10.12) I believe that Hume believes that the the laws of nature, cannot ever be violated, for if one believes that this is possible, then the laws of nature are fallible and belief in the laws of nature which should be unalterable, would no longer apply. It is therefore, far more reasonable to believe that the laws of nature, which have proven themselves over and over again, are in fact to be believed and accepted over any possiblity for the existence of a miracle.
Hume, David (1711-1776). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Ed. Eric Steinberg. 2nd Ed. United States: Hackett Publishing Company Inc., 1993.
...ot be accomplished by man himself. Paine on the other hand believes “there is no such thing as a miracle” (Timmerman and Hettinga 104). Paine says that it is easier to believe that a man is telling a lie than to believe in a miracle. In a way, I do agree that it is much easier to believe that a man is telling a lie than to believe in a miracle; however, I know what God is capable of doing, and I know that He is performing miracles every day.
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.
In science, Hume recognized a problem with scientific causality. He saw science as being based on inductive reasoning, which results in generalized rules or principles.
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.
This paper will dispute that scientific beliefs are not the right way to accept a belief and it will question if we should let one accept their rights to their own beliefs. In Williams James article Will to Believe, we accept his perspective on how we set and fix our beliefs. This paper will first outline his overview on the argument that someone does not choose their belief but rather one just has them. Following, it will outline my perspective on how we set our beliefs and agreement with purse. Then it will explain how other methodologies such as science cannot conclude to one’s true beliefs. Science has been seen as a way to perceive life and taken to consideration as the truth. This paper should conclude that humans define ourselves by
This paper critically examines Hume’s argument against the knowledge/existence of substantival mind. This denial is rooted in his epistemology which includes a theory of how complex ideas which lack corresponding impressions are manufactured by the imagination, in conjunction with the memory, on the basis of three relations among impressions: resemblance, continuity and constant conjunction. The crux of my critique consists in pointing out that these relations are such that only an enduring, unified agent could interact with them in the way Hume describes. I note that Hume attempts to provide such an agent by invoking the activities of imagination and memory, but that it is unclear where these belong in his system. After discussing the relevant possibilities, I conclude that there is no category within the limits of his system that can accommodate the faculties and allow them to do the work Hume assigned to them. I then note that Hume’s rejection of substantival mind rests upon the assumption that something like substantival mind exists; for the action of the latter is required for the proper functioning of the process of fabrication which creates the fictitious notion of substantival mind. My concluding argument is that if the existence of substantival mind is implicit in Hume’s argument against substantival mind, then his argument resembles an indirect proof, and ought to be considered as evidence for, rather than against, the existence of substantival mind.
The argument that is used in the idea of skepticism has comparable and incompatible views given from Augustine and Al-Ghazali. Both monologues cover and explain the doubts one should have, due to the