"Of Miracles" by David Hume

[Pyrrho]

If I understand Hume's position, it's an argument to the most likely hypothesis, a la Bayes.  I haven't finished Craig's paper but he seems to be arguing that assigning the probability of a miracle to be low in comparison to the alternatives is a form of begging the question.  I confess I have some sympathy for Craig's position.

Have you read Hume?  It is best to read him first, rather than reading a reply to him first.  You will then be in a better position to know whether the reply is misrepresenting Hume or not.

[Pyrrho]

Most people reason more or less as Hume advises, most of the time.  In fact, pretty much everyone reasons as he does regarding miracles for other people's religions.  They don't, however, tend to apply the same level of skepticism to their own preferred beliefs.  Which is to say, they are prejudiced in favor of their favored religion, and do not treat it the same as they treat other stories of a like nature.  If they were reasonable, they would follow the same principles in all cases, and not make exceptions for their favored stories.


To give you an example of what I mean, suppose I were to tell all of you that every night, I fly around my bedroom, without the aid of any devices, as I find it relaxing before going to sleep.  Would any of you suppose that this miracle occurred?  Would you have any inclination at all to suppose that it is true?  Or would you immediately reject the claim as untrue?

You know, from your own experience, that many people say falsehoods.  But you probably don't know of anyone flying without the aid of any devices, nor does that probably fit with your ideas of what people can do.  So what would you believe if I claimed that I could fly without the aid of any devices?

Would any of you seriously believe that I can fly without the aid of any device?  Would any of you even be slightly tempted to believe it? Or would you all reject it as a ridiculous falsehood?


Suppose I got my wife to also tell you that I fly, and have a couple of neighbors testify that I do so as well.  Will that make any difference for you?  Will you believe the story if I can get some people to also claim it is true?



Bringing God into the question also changes nothing.  We can apply this to my example.  Suppose I were to tell you, it is not my power that allows for me to fly around my bedroom, but it is God's power that allows me to do so.  God, being omnipotent, can make me fly, if it pleases Him to do so.  Now, does that change your opinion of whether I fly each night or not?


Here is Hume on the issue of bringing God into the matter:

Though the Being to whom the miracle is ascribed, be, in this case, Almighty, it does not, upon that account, become a whit more probable; since it is impossible for us to know the attributes or actions of such a Being, otherwise than from the experience which we have of his productions, in the usual course of nature. This still reduces us to past observation, and obliges us to compare the instances of the violation of truth in the testimony of men, with those of the violation of the laws of nature by miracles, in order to judge which of them is most likely and probable. As the violations of truth are more common in the testimony concerning religious miracles, than in that concerning any other matter of fact; this must diminish very much the authority of the former testimony, and make us form a general resolution, never to lend any attention to it, with whatever specious pretence it may be covered.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_261

[abaris]

Yeah but didn't pee wee get busted with his wee wee in his hand in a porn theater in NYC?

Isn't that what porn theaters are for?

[robvalue]

I don't see WLC's position as much more than an argument from ignorance, you can't prove there aren't miracles. I would think most sceptics would not make the claim that there are no miracles. But unless WLC can offer any insight into how one would go about finding out what is a miracle and what isn't, his comments seem pretty useless to me. I mean what are we supposed to do, just believe people every so often that something is a miracle?

There is no current way to verify supernatural causation, so that seems to be the end of it. I don't know exactly what WLC would have us do.

[Pyrrho]

I don't see WLC's position as much more than an argument from ignorance, you can't prove there aren't miracles. I would think most sceptics would not make the claim that there are no miracles.

My guess is, most skeptics would say that there are no miracles.  But to see who is right, there would have to be some sort of polling, and not simply of those who are at this site.

Most likely, WLC would deny the occurrence of miracles that are not consistent with his particular brand of religion.  For some examples of the sorts of things I mean, you can take a look at some of the stories in Hume's essay, or take a look at:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richa...kooks.html

I doubt that WLC will accept the miracle stories of Vespasian curing a blind man with his spittle, or curing a lame man by the touch of his foot, divinely made possible by the god Serapis.

But unless WLC can offer any insight into how one would go about finding out what is a miracle and what isn't, his comments seem pretty useless to me. I mean what are we supposed to do, just believe people every so often that something is a miracle?

There is no current way to verify supernatural causation, so that seems to be the end of it. I don't know exactly what WLC would have us do.

Proving that something did not happen is an interesting thing.  Suppose I decide to no longer fly around my bedroom (see my post above), saying something like, "flying is a young man's game," and no longer claim to fly.  How would anyone prove that I did not previously fly around my bedroom?

My guess is, most would say the mere fact that such a thing is incompatible with the laws of nature is sufficient proof that the flying did not occur.

Wouldn't you believe that it did not happen?  And what would you think of the mental abilities of anyone who did not believe that it did not happen?

[robvalue]

Oh yeah, I would say I don't believe it happened. I would be extremely confident it didn't happen, and indeed I would be worried about anyone who said otherwise. I just don't feel comfortable making statements of absolute certainty about anything unless it is a clear case of logical contradiction.

I believe very strongly there are no such things as miracles. But again, I wouldn't personally like to claim I know there are no miracles, or to state that there are none. With anything unfalsifiable, I would say I have no reason to believe it is true but cannot know it is false. Making an absolute claim feels dishonest to me, and is also overreaching which makes you vulnerable to the kind of crap WLC likes to fling. Once someone finds out I'm not saying something is false, it tends to take the wind out of their sails.

That's interesting, I wonder what sceptics would say. When I say about denying miracles I mean in the strongest possible sense, not just a statement of belief. I'd fully expect any sceptic to believe there is no such thing as miracles.

Maybe we need a poll

[Pyrrho]

I think my example (of flying around my bedroom) is a good one, because I am pretty sure that WLC would not be even slightly inclined to believe it either. And that is the thing, people don't apply the same principles to all miracle stories. Hume is trying to get people to do that, and not favor the stories one was raised to believe. Hume is also wanting people to think about how one should evaluate them, but part of what he is up to is trying to get people to apply the same standards to all miracle stories.

Also, Hume is not talking about a proof as being like a proof in geometry. He clearly means a more ordinary sort of thing, which is not giving absolute certainty.

_________________________________

And how dare you question my integrity! If I say I fly around my bedroom every night, I do so!

[bennyboy]

Yeah but didn't pee wee get busted with his wee wee in his hand in a porn theater in NYC?

Isn't that what porn theaters are for?

Yeah, I'm still kind of pissed about that.  Some dude was watching a film of people have sex-- AND he was masturbating?  Who can even imagine?  And then to violate his privacy and run him through the media with a "leak"?  He should have sued for billions.

[nihilistcat]

Isn't that what porn theaters are for?

Yeah, I'm still kind of pissed about that.  Some dude was watching a film of people have sex-- AND he was masturbating?  Who can even imagine?  And then to violate his privacy and run him through the media with a "leak"?  He should have sued for billions.

Agreed (like, why else would anyone visit a porn theater)

[Crossless2.0]

Pyrrho: Most likely, WLC would deny the occurrence of miracles that are not consistent with his particular brand of religion.  For some examples of the sorts of things I mean, you can take a look at some of the stories in Hume's essay, or take a look at:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richa...kooks.html

I doubt that WLC will accept the miracle stories of Vespasian curing a blind man with his spittle, or curing a lame man by the touch of his foot, divinely made possible by the god Serapis.

The problem is that the Christian religion is so goofy about the supernatural that WLC and other believers have a smorgasbord of possible responses.  He could selectively play the skeptic and deny the alleged miracle took place at all.  He could affirm belief that it happened but was really the result of Satan's trickery.  He could even take the tack that the miracle happened and was really the working of Yahweh/Christ but was misunderstood by the witnesses.