...Hume and miracles Examine Hume’s views on miracles. Hume rejected the idea of miracles due to his belief they were beyond the realms of reasonable belief there are other interpretations of the events which would be more likely. Hume believes wise and sensible people will form their beliefs on evidence. Therefore it must be more likely that it is true than it being false before they believe it. Hume argued we should weigh up the evidence in the case of miracles. We should look at which more likely; natural rules will have held good, or is it more likely that a miracle will have taken place. By Hume’s thinking our past experiences have shown us that for example, we can’t turn water into wine, we can’t rise from the dead, we can’t walk on water, therefore the whole weight of past experiences we have had bears this out. This leads to us being sceptical when it comes when looking at reports that something different has happened. You have several choices when/if someone tells you they’ve witnessed a miracle. You could believe what the person is telling you, if you know the person well enough and know they usually tell the truth then you would do so. However, you could believe that the person is mistaken or deceiving you on purpose. For Hume, he argued that a reasonable person would choose the most likely of the choices, even though it may be unlikely that the person is deceiving you and unlikely that they’ve made a mistake it will always be more unlikely that a miracle has...
Words: 1496 - Pages: 6
...Asses Humes reason for rejecting miracles. (35) Hume defines a miracle as a transgression of a natural law by a particular volition of the deity. This does not imply that a miracle is an extraordinary event but it is one that breaks the natural law and that it is brought about by the action of God. Other two definitions would be that a miracle is an event that has religious significance and this does not need to have broken the laws of nature to be regarded as a miracle but it needs to reveal something about God. The last definition of a miracle is a view of Thomas Aquinas who defines miracles as an event caused by God. In this essay I will be discussing why Hume rejects miracles and arguments for and against his theories. Hume was an empiricist, so he believed that it was more likely that the report of a miracle was mistaken than the laws of nature were violated. He did not say that miracles did not happen, but that it would be impossible to prove them. Hume’s argument is based on the principle of induction, which is the suggestion that future events will take place based on previous evidence. This is because evidence from people’s experience of observing the world showed the laws of nature to be fixed and unvarying. For example, the sun has risen every day in the past, so it is very likely that it will rise again and not stand still in the sky. However, Hume did accept that whatever happened countless times in the past did not guarantee such would happen again in...
Words: 703 - Pages: 3
...Analysis of David Hume's “Of Miracles” A.) Violations of Nature do not exist. All miracles are violations of nature. Therefore, miracles do not exist. B.) This is valid deductive argument given by Hume. However, the argument is unsound because it is has a false premise and a false conclusion. Either of the premises have to be false, both cannot be true at the same time, and the conclusion is false. C.) Hume in his argument for identifying miracles is an example of Begging the Question. This can be found two paragraphs before Part 2 in “Of Miracles”. This is when Hume is talking about uniform experience. (Last 2 sentences) Hume. If we take what Hume says that uniform experience is against miracles is to basically say that the miracles,...
Words: 613 - Pages: 3
...Do religious miracles happen for real? This very question has been contested time and time again throughout history of humankind. While there is numerous human testimonies that claim to have witnessed religious miracles take place right before their eyes, there are also contradictory human testimonies that appear to argue otherwise. It is because of this very gridlock in arguments that I wish to analyze both sides to this question via the use of two highly respected and intellectual philosophers—David Hume and Phaedo from Plato. While Phaedo appears to be on the side that inexplicitly accepts the possibility of miracles, David Hume appears to make a case around reason and common sense that persuasively argues otherwise. According to the philosopher, David Hume, in his An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding,...
Words: 1120 - Pages: 5
...,ASSESS HUME’S REASONS FOR REJECTING MIRACLES Hume’s rejection of miracles comes from his theory that there are laws of nature which are based on past experience, a posteriori, and appear to be unvarying and universal. During this essay I will put forward Hume’s approach before assessing his reasons for the rejections of miracles and what other philosophers have said about his rejection. According to the dictionary definition, a miracle is defined as: ‘a highly improbable or extraordinary event that is not explicable by natural laws and is considered to be divine’. Hume’s definition of a miracle is not that different from the dictionary definition, defining them as: ‘a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.’ He puts forward two separate arguments against miracles; one being a priori and the other being a posteriori. The first of his arguments is based on the lack of probability and is a priori. Hume argues that miracles are violations of the laws of nature and a ‘firm and unalterable experience’ has established these laws of nature. He did not deny that these events, miracles, would not happen; but instead said that they are the least likely event possible, and improbable events need witnesses of higher credibility than witnesses required for more probable events. Hume argued that even the most impressive testimony will at most counterbalance the unlikeliness of the event. Clearly, a serious...
Words: 1207 - Pages: 5
...Hume was a verificationist and approached miracles from an empirical view, relying on probability as a basis for his reasons for rejecting miracles. Hume defined miracles as a ‘violation of the laws of nature’, he believed that the laws of nature were set in stone, through the use of a posteriori knowledge Hume identified them as being universal and unchanging. Hume observed that some Biblical miracles, such as Jesus walking on water, violated those laws of nature. He then went on to identify the probability that a violation of these laws could occur, Hume argued that if the probability of an event occurring was low then there was little chance that the miracle had actually occurred. This would be true in the event of a baby falling from a 3rd floor window and escaping unscathed, the probability of this happening is extremely low thus Hume would state that a report of it happening was false and it probably did not happen. Through using the principle of probability a miraculous event should be labelled as a miracle only where it would be unbelievable for it to be anything less. Upon following this principle it is less likely that the testimony is false than the miracle occurred should you have a prior belief, however if you do not believe in a deity and the probability of a miracle occurring then the miracles happening is less likely than the testimony being false. This argument used by Hume is not an effective argument as there are cases in which the laws of nature have been...
Words: 793 - Pages: 4
...David Hume, 18th century Scottish philosopher, had an empiricist view on miracles. This means he needed scientific evidence in order to believe it and prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that they did or did not happen. Although Hume accepted that miracles were possible, he also says he believes they have never happened and are very unlikely to. He says the ‘wise’ man must make his judgement on the basis of the evidence before him. Hume defined a miracle as a ‘transgression of natural law by a particular volition of the deity or by the interposition of some invisible agent’. In his essay ‘on miracles’ he divided his argument into two parts philosophical and practical. In this essay I am going to explain Hume’s main arguments against miracles...
Words: 654 - Pages: 3
...Hume defines miracles as a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity or by the interposition of some invisible agent. David Hume has 4 main criticisms that this essay will explore and look at the responses to these criticisms. For Hume, a miracle such as Jesus curing the paralytic is an example of an event which suggests that something happened which broke the laws of nature. It is important to understand what Hume means by the law of nature, as his ideas are slightly different from those of scientists today. Hume uses the law of nature to show how the universe works. He does not say that miracles don’t exist, they are just not reliable and we should not base our faith on them. David Hume’s first criticism of miracles is that the uniform of testimony of all human experience of nature hold. Hume argues that the probability of miracles actually happening is to low that it is irrational and illogical to believe that miracles do occur. He is an empiricist, meaning that he emphasises experience and observations of the world as the way of learning new things. So, Hume is arguing inductively. He argues that when investigating any story of a miracle, evidence can be collected such as from human witnesses. Laws of nature appear to be fixed and unvarying. For example, the law of gravity is the same throughout the universe so far as we know. Miracles appear to violate the laws of nature. He concludes that it is more likely that the report of a miracle happening...
Words: 314 - Pages: 2
...A miracle, as a broad definition, is an act of God that “transgresses the laws of nature” (David Hume), an act that seems to defy all rational. For many this offers strong evidence for the existence of God, as these inexplicable events must have a cause, that of a transcendent, metaphysical being. However, for others, most notably David Hume, miracles are a logical impossibility, an oxymoron if you will. He tried to prove, through a priori and a posterior reasoning that miracles, because of their metaphysical origin, cannot be what people claim them to be (intervention by God). Problems with the law of nature to language problems with the way miracles are experienced and reported provide ammunition for those that agree with the assumption in the title. By defining what miracles are and then exploring the criticisms and counter criticisms for these definitions we should arrive at a conclusion as to whether miracles, in the sense they are defined, are possible. Brian Davis proposed that there were two different types of miracles, the essential difference being the varying degree of possible divine intervention that can be attributed to the event. Strong Miracles are events that can only be attributed to God – he is intervening in the world to change the course of history. This may be, as Hume suggested, a “transgression of the laws of nature by a particular violation of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent”. However, Humey boy took issue with strong miracles...
Words: 2011 - Pages: 9
...interprets an event as an act of God and another does not? Hume Created a case against miracles saying not that they do not happen, but that it would be impossible to prove them – he is an empiricist (bases knowledge on experience). A miracle is ‘A transgression of a law of nature brought about by a particular violation of a Deity’. Nothing that can happen in nature should be called a miracle. Had 5 arguments against believing in miracles; one philosophical and four psychological. Not enough evidence of miracles to outweigh our general experience. Rationality requires that belief is proportionate to evidence. ‘A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence’. Insufficient witnesses – must be witnessed by a highly credible, good sense, well-educated person. How much education is ‘enough’? The testimonies usually came from ignorant and barbarous nations. People tend to exaggerate and are drawn towards the sensational and drama. The often have a desire to believe. There are conflicting claims that cancel each other out. Hick’s response would be that all religions lead to one God though. Hume will never be fully able to fully prove to believers that miracles do not occur, as the definition of a miracle implies divine activity and this is ultimately beyond our earthly considerations. But sceptics and believers can be said to both agree that the occurrence of miracles must be a very rare event. Critque of Hume Hick would say that we do not know the laws of nature, and...
Words: 961 - Pages: 4
...Hume defines miracles as ‘violations of the laws of nature’ which leads him to reject their existence, as by definition, they are beyond the realms of reasonable belief. In defence of miracles, Swinburne challenges some of Hume’s practical arguments. Hume claims miracles only occur among uneducated and ignorant people, suggesting a lack of convincing testimony. Swinburne questions how you define when people are educated and what level of education is required to give ‘reliable’ testimony of a miracle, underlining Hume’s vagueness. It could mean that people lack a familiarity with science as Hume suggests, but this fails to explain why many people who are clearly educated still attest to experiencing miracles. However, historical evidence is used to support Hume’s case. It is evident that as the nation develops and becomes more educated, the number of reported miracles disappear. Swinburne also criticises Hume’s proposition that contradictory reports of miracles occurring in different religions cancel each other out. Swinburne condemns the view that miracles in any religion prove the truth of one religious belief correct over another. He points out the majority of reported miracles by theists involve God helping someone, for instance through healing. Instead of this being contradictory, they perhaps simultaneously verify the belief in a common benevolent God, validating miracles. Furthermore, Hume’s definition of a miracle is criticised as he places emphasis on the fixed...
Words: 458 - Pages: 2
...Comment on the view that arguments against miracles are stronger than those arguments in support of them David Hume proposed his definition of a miracle but in spite of this Hume had criticisms claiming that it was not reasonable to believe in miracles as the evidence was totally unreliable. He stated two weaknesses to the belief in miracles: 1) Based on our large experience of natural laws, it makes more sense to say that there is some other explanation for example that we cannot know every natural law. For example, had Jesus been crucified in our time and come back to life after three days. Overall this could be regarded as a miracle today but it might not be considered as a miracle in the future 2) The evidence of miracles often comes from the testimony of others. We should not rely on such second-hand accounts, because accounts of others cannot be trusted. For example in Fatima thousands of witnesses claimed to have seen the sun spin and fall out of the sky however the witnesses may have been deceived because of their excitement. Firstly, Hume challenged the testimonies of miraculous occurrences on the ground that there were not enough reliable witnesses. There have never been enough a miracle which has been witnessed by a sufficiently large number reliable, objective witnesses. For example there will never be a large enough amounts of educated, reasonable, trustworthy and respected men for us to believe their testimony the resurrection of Jesus was seen by...
Words: 1540 - Pages: 7
...Hume defined miracles as a “violation of the laws of nature” and consequently rejected their occurrence as both improbable and impractical. This view has been supported by modern scientists and philosophers such as Atkins, Dawkins and Wiles to a certain extent. However Aquinas, Tillich and Holland and Swinburne to a certain extent reject Hume’s reasons, instead arguing that miracles have a divine cause and that Hume’s arguments are weak. This essay will argue that Hume’s reasons for rejecting miracles are not valid and in doing so consider his two main arguments; lack of probability and Hume’s practical argument. Hume’s first reason for rejecting miracles was a lack of probability. He argued that evidence from people’s experience of observing the world showed the laws of nature to be fixed and unvarying. However to suggest a miracle occurred was to say that the laws of nature had been violated, hence his definition of miracles being a “violation of the laws of nature.” Miracles were reported has having occurred by eyewitnesses, as is stated in the Bible in the case of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. However for Hume it was far more likely that the eyewitnesses were mistaken in what they witnessed, than for Jesus to have actually raised Lazarus from the dead and in doing so violated fixed laws of nature. A violation of the laws of nature was therefore an improbable occurrence. Wiles’ agrees with Hume’s point that it is more likely the eyewitness was wrong than a miracle...
Words: 1313 - Pages: 6
...(a) Outline the key concepts of miracle and examine the main reasons to believe in miracles The world miracle derive from the Latin word ‘miror’ which means I wonder at. Miracles is a posterior and inductive argument. There are three key concepts of miracles which are it should break the law of nature, it must have purpose and significance and it should be open to religious and spiritual understanding. The definition associated with miracles comes from David Hume stating “a miracle is a transgression of a law of nature by a particular violation of the deity”. One key concept of miracles comes from Thomas Aquinas a 13th century philosopher whom believed in a realist view of miracles and states “things that are done occasionally by divine power apart from the order generally followed in things”. He proposed three categories, the first rank which are events done by god that nature and humans can logically not do such as Jesus walking on water. The second rank are events done by god that nature could do but not in that order for example the resurrection of Jesus. The third ranks are events done by god that nature can do but god does without the use of natural laws such as the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law in the chapter of Nark in the bible. This is one of the key concepts of miracles as Aquinas ranks are consistent with religious tradition. There are two concepts of miracles one of which is a realist view where miracles actual do have to have happened to be meaningful and the...
Words: 543 - Pages: 3
...“By definition a miracle can never happen.” Discuss. The known definition of a miracle is “an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.” However, Peter Vardy in The Puzzle of God gave four different definitions provided by many different scholars, including Aquinas and Hume, with Hume believing they are impossible but cannot be disproved compared to Aquinas believing they are completely possible even within the system of natural activity. What a miracle is can be debated forever due to the many different interpretations of who and why they come about, with psychologists such as Freud arguing they are just an illusion and Wiles arguing that miracles do exist but not as a result of God’s will. The real question is whether the laws of nature can ever be broken and to that affect – do miracles define themselves into non-existence? The definition of a miracle provided by Hume is “a transgression of the laws of nature brought about by the volition of a deity.” He believes that miracles are simply an interposition by some invisible agent, but he however goes on to challenge this definition with his theoretical case miracles which argued that the laws of nature we experience are constant and therefore cannot be changed, In response to this, as the laws of nature cannot be defied, (if they could be broken they would not be laws), by Hume’s definition, miracles can never happen, as laws of nature...
Words: 1617 - Pages: 7
