Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 5, 2024, 10:06 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"Of Miracles" by David Hume
#1
"Of Miracles" by David Hume
To avoid derailing another thread, this is being given its own thread.

Here is a link to Section X ("Of Miracles") of David Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding:

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


Hume argues that:


A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable [115] to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered credible, but by an opposite proof, which is superior.

The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), ‘That no testimony is sufficient [116] to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish; and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior.’ When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.


http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_235



Basically, he argues that one should never believe any stories of miracles that one hears or reads.


I will be happy to defend Hume's position, and to try to explain more details, as needed.  It is suggested that one read "Of Miracles" first to make life easier for all of us.  Both Parts I and II, preferably along with the footnotes (you can just click on the footnote number to take you to the footnote, and then click on the footnote number in the footnote to return to the text; the 'additional' footnote on page 344 is here; the numbers in brackets in the text are telling you the original page numbers in the printed book).  If you get lost in the footnotes, you can use the first link in this post above to find the main text again.


I will help you with reading it, too.  For a start, the "real presence" in Dr. Tillotson's writings refers to the Eucharist ceremony in Christianity, and the doctrine of transubstantiation, in which it is claimed that the bread and wine literally change into the body and blood of Jesus, while maintaining the appearance (in all ways) of bread and wine.  The doctrine of transubstantiation predates modern chemistry, and is based on an idea that the substance of a thing can be different from all of its qualities of appearance (the way it looks, smells, tastes, etc.).  And it does not matter who Dr. Tillotson is for the argument.  But if you are curious, you can read this.  For the most part, though, do not expect me to bother with matters like that, that are irrelevant to the argument.


Ask any questions you want.


Happy reading!

"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
Reply
#2
RE: "Of Miracles" by David Hume
Nice Smile

Yes, in fact I'd go further to say that one should never believe any supernatural claim at all, be it manifestation or causation. It seems to me it's impossible to pose any sort of claim with regard to the supernatural as a falsifiable position. We rely not on the observer's testimony, but their assessment of the supernatural. Seeing as no one is qualified to identify the supernatural, it is always reasonable to assume they have allowed their superstitions to run away with them.

I mean, I have people tell me they've seen a ghost. I say to them, how do you know it was a ghost? Guess what they say? "What else could it be?" Great. I'm expected to identify a potentially supernatural phenomena with only their testimony to go by, and if I as much as hint that I can't provide an answer, then they cling to their judgement.

If someone really has found a way to verify the supernatural, they have beaten all of science. Maybe they have. But much more likely, they have not.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#3
RE: "Of Miracles" by David Hume
I haven't had the chance to read it all, but what do you think of William Lane Craig's article which covers the argument by Hume?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-probl...erspective
[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
#4
RE: "Of Miracles" by David Hume
(May 17, 2015 at 4:42 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I haven't had the chance to read it all, but what do you think of William Lane Craig's article which covers the argument by Hume?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-probl...erspective

Craig is an idiot who reminds me of Pee Wee Herman for some reason Smile
Reply
#5
RE: "Of Miracles" by David Hume
(May 17, 2015 at 4:42 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I haven't had the chance to read it all, but what do you think of William Lane Craig's article which covers the argument by Hume?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-probl...erspective

To fully express my feelings for William Lane Craig would involve intemperate language.  Suffice it to say I think he is an idiot who not only misrepresents Hume in some respects, but also fallaciously argues against him in instances in which he does not misrepresent Hume.  This has been common practice among those who dislike Hume's conclusions, starting when Hume was alive.

(May 17, 2015 at 4:44 pm)francismjenkins Wrote:
(May 17, 2015 at 4:42 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I haven't had the chance to read it all, but what do you think of William Lane Craig's article which covers the argument by Hume?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-probl...erspective

Craig is an idiot who reminds me of Pee Wee Herman for some reason Smile

You are being very unkind to Pee Wee Herman with that remark.

"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
Reply
#6
RE: "Of Miracles" by David Hume
Yeah but didn't pee wee get busted with his wee wee in his hand in a porn theater in NYC? Smile
Reply
#7
RE: "Of Miracles" by David Hume
The problem with claims of miracle is that all of them are equally unverifiable and unfalsifiable - The human brain can provide amazing experiences that feel transcendent and caused by a supernatural entity - I think people who claim miracles are mostly convinced they are right, even though some of them are probably lying because it brings them advantages (like being worshipped or admired inside a conservative religious community). Something that is unfalsifiable is, on principle, useless as evidence for the existence of a supernatural being, and the fact several people who worship diverse supernatural beings equally claim divine intervention doesn't help.

Taking a more philosophical approach I would ask why god helps only some believers but lets others in pain, agony and suffering - Or why does god help bad believers (i.e. murderers, etc.)?
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you

Reply
#8
RE: "Of Miracles" by David Hume
On a serious note, Hume is one of the great one's. His writings on inductive reasoning should be required reading in every high school curriculum.

But not gonna happen anytime soon (our rebel red states seem to be rebelling against the enlightenment, science, and rational thinking, trying to revise history and redefine rationality, to suit its bronze age, knuckle-dragging thinking).
Reply
#9
RE: "Of Miracles" by David Hume
(May 17, 2015 at 7:32 pm)francismjenkins Wrote: Yeah but didn't pee wee get busted with his wee wee in his hand in a porn theater in NYC? Smile


That is nothing compared with William Lane Craig.  A guy masturbating is nothing compared with an asshole spreading bullshit.

"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
Reply
#10
RE: "Of Miracles" by David Hume
(May 17, 2015 at 7:32 pm)francismjenkins Wrote: Yeah but didn't pee wee get busted with his wee wee in his hand in a porn theater in NYC? Smile

Sarasota, Florida.

I Touch Myself
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

Albert Einstein
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Thread for the Analysis of Henry David Thoreau's Writings vulcanlogician 20 2989 July 27, 2019 at 9:08 am
Last Post: DLJ
  'Is & Ought' in David Hume Pyrrho 14 4023 June 15, 2015 at 9:56 am
Last Post: mralstoner
  Hume weakened analogical arguments for God. Pizza 18 6443 March 25, 2015 at 6:13 pm
Last Post: Pyrrho
  Miracles are useless as evidence Pizza 0 1303 March 15, 2015 at 7:37 pm
Last Post: Pizza
  Is Dialogues Part XII Hume's "death bed conversion moment" to theism? Mudhammam 7 2157 June 25, 2014 at 12:19 am
Last Post: Mudhammam
  Hume's Guillotine sets up an ethical regress problem Coffee Jesus 8 3199 April 13, 2014 at 9:14 am
Last Post: Coffee Jesus
  how to explain church miracles? leodeo 20 4608 October 31, 2013 at 10:46 am
Last Post: Faith No More
  Does Hume's argument against miracles succeed? MindForgedManacle 2 1444 July 27, 2013 at 6:58 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)