David Hume's Meditations Of The First Philosophy

In order for an event to be deemed a miracle, it must disobey the laws of nature. However, it is these same laws that disprove almost any miracle that has ever been reported. He writes that some events that people report as miracles truly are not. For example, it is not a miracle, that fire burns wood, or that a healthy man dies, because both of these are

The idea of a miracle and its context depends on the definition in which it is used; the first definition of a miracle is a “transgression of the laws of nature” such as walking on water. This was used by Hume who stated that for a miracle to occur a law of nature must be broken, with this focus on laws of nature he aimed to show that it is irrational to believe in miracles because it is irrational to believe in a violation of any natural law, as by believing in this God becomes redundant. He puts forward the method of proportioning the belief to evidence – if you weigh up the miracle against another option what is more likely? That a miracle, a transgression of a law of nature, has occurred or

Hume’s other two arguments entail the human attraction to miracle stories because of their wonder and entertainment, as well as the tendency for miracle stories to occur chiefly amongst “ignorant and barbarous” people, with those who are civilized only believing in miracles because they have been passed down from “ignorant and barbarous” ancestors. Hume explains that miracle stories only survive the test of time not because of their truth, but rather because of they are sensational, and that an enlightened individual would never truly believe in a miracle because, according to Hume,

In Hume’s 1748 publication: An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding , Section 10 is titled Of Miracles. This section is an extended argument against the veracity of miracles. In response to Hume, Richard Price published Four Dissertations in 1768. In Dissertation IV, The Importance of Christianity, the Nature of Historical Evidence and Miracles, Price outlines a Bayesian argument against Hume’s conclusions that miracles cannot ever occur.

Miracles according to Hume, are a violation of natural law and are not possible. Earman argues that though the occurrence of a miracle may be very low, they can be probable with enough reliable witnesses. Along these lines Hume’s argument of not being able to believe the existence of miracles, would be wrong. Miracles are just one of many ways God tries to make himself evident.

In reply to David Hume’s Of Miracles Richard Swinburne argues that the evidence necessary to justify belief in miracles shouldn’t be as rigorous as Hume purports. Hume suggests that for belief in a miraculous event to be justifiable its falsehood would have to be more miraculous than the evidence for the law of nature it violates. The stance occupied by Hume allows for miracles, but only in a very loose sense. For example, if you or someone else reports that a miracle has occurred, Hume would argue that it is more likely you/the reporter experienced a hallucination or are simply lying than that you/they actually experienced a miracle. Hume ironically justifies this by appealing to past experiments that support the law of nature (cough cough

“It forms strong presumption against all supernatural and miraculous relations that they are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous nations.” He goes further with the idea that if someone testifies about a miracle, they “received them from ignorant and barbarous ancestors…” Further, “the advantages are so great of starting an imposture among ignorant people that . . . it has a much better chance for succeeding in remote countries than if the first scene had been laid in a city renowned for arts and knowledge (126).” Another argument by Hume is that “there is no testimony for [an alleged miracle] that is not opposed by an infinite number of witnesses . . . ” Miracles have a self-canceling nature.

Hume tries to counter attack what many believe miracles are. He is more against the notion of miracles in the religion aspect, by bringing intellectual form into the illustration “It is no miracles that a man in good health dies but it is a miracle if a dead man should come back to life (Hume, 771)”. By the content, the culture where the document was produced is more on religion, therefore spirituality and enlightenment is more profound in the document. Hume wants to change their perspectives about the miracles that are mostly associated with religion. In Hume’s exclamation, he says, “No human testimony can have such force as to prove a miracle and make it a foundation for any such system of religion (Hume,

In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding by David Hume, the idea of miracles is introduced. Hume’s argument is that there is no rational reason for human beings to believe in miracles, and that it is wrong to have miracles as the building blocks for religion. It is because the general notion of miracles come from the statement of others who claim to have seen them, Hume believes that there is no way to prove that those accounts are accurate, because they were not experienced first-hand. In order to believe a miracle, the evidence should be concrete, and something irrefutable. When there is any sort of doubt to a miracle, Hume says that any evidence that can be contrary to the proof of a miracle is merely evidence that the miracle did

The modern world was a time of growth compared to the medieval worldviews; science was now seen as dominant to religion. Science is based on empirical observation. The modern worldview had a great impact on the types of knowledge that were known which was very significant to philosopher David Hume because he was the man who brought into consideration these two types of knowledge; the “Relation of Ideas” and “Matters of Fact”. The other type of knowledge that was brought up by Hume is known as “Matters of Fact.” In the discussion of “Matter of Fact,” it is clear that this idea of Hume’s is rooted in the modern worldview of empiricism.

In section X of An enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume explains his account of miracles and his argument against them. When addressing his account of miracles he informs that knowledge of miracles strictly originates from the testimony of those who have claimed to see miracles. He also argues against miracles because they defy the laws of nature.

David Hume’s critique of miracles fails to consider the evidence of the power that surpasses natural laws and he fails to account for differences in the conceptions of a miracle. While discussing Hume’s critique, it is important to understand what his view of miracles actually is and the support he gets. He contains three premises to his belief of miracles, and they

(Of Miracles Part 1, Hume p 3) 4) Therefore, miracles cannot exist and by example, the resurrection miracle is false. Hume’s conclusion is false due to assertion #3 being flawed because it applies the commonly accepted measure for the laws of nature against a miracle which contradicts the definition of a miracle in #1. Further, Hume does not consider that “uniform experience” can be defined as a group of people experiencing a single occurrence of a miraculous event.

In “A Treatise of Human Nature,” Hume argues whether or not passions can unreasonable. To preface his argument, Hume said: “The greatest part of moral philosophy, ancient and modern, is preeminence of reason above passion” (pg.1) Following this view that reason trumps passion, Hume says that all rational creatures must manage their actions by using reason.

Hume argues that a miracle is a breach of a law of nature. As I said