Hume’s View Kn The Possibility Of Miracles Flashcards
(19 cards)
What does the term ‘miracle’ mean?
The term miracle, from the Latin ‘miraculum’, means ‘wonder’.
How did C. S. Lewis define miracles?
C. S. Lewis defined miracles as ‘An interference with nature by supernatural power.’
What is David Hume’s definition of a miracle?
David Hume (1711-1776), an empiricist who believed all questions of truth had to be based upon experience, defined a miracle in ‘Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding’ as ‘a violation of natural law’ which he later developed to ‘a transgression of a law of nature by a particular violation of the Deity, or by the interpretation of some invisible agent’.
What was Hume’s purpose in discussing miracles?
to convince people that the appeal to miracles could not demonstrate the truth of Christianity or religion in general. He attempts to show on philosophical grounds that the evidence against the occurrence of a purported miracle strongly outweighs the evidence in favour of the occurrence and in practise, the evidence against such events is substantial.
What did Hume believe about belief and evidence?
a wise person proportions their belief to the evidence. The evidence in favour must outweigh the evidence against: for example, the testimony of witnesses to a miracle. “Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matters of fact and experience? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”
What example did Hume use to illustrate his point on miracles?
Where the experience has been constant then this constitutes a full proof. Where it has been variable then it is a case of weighing the proportionate probability of the experience having happened against not having happened.
A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature that have been established by a firm and unalterable experience: thus, even the most impressive testimony would merely balance the improbability of the miracle. Hume concluded that only testimony whereby the falsehood of the miracle itself be more miraculous than the alleged miracle would convince him of its validity. For example, the miracle of Jesus walking on water from the bible; Hume would suggest that there is more evidence to support the fact people cannot walk on water rather than the one time that Jesus did, and so we should not believe it.
What did Brian Davies criticize about Hume’s view on miracles?
Hume does not deny the possibility of miracles but examines the balance of probability by considering the quality of testimony. Brian Davies criticises Hume’s disbelief in miracles: saying that when man walked on the moon; that too was one instance of what was previously impossible - but that doesn’t necessarily make it untrue.
He said “Miracles are ‘unexpected and fortuitous events in the light of which we are disposed to give thanks to God.”
What did Hume emphasize regarding the quality of testimony?
Hume emphasises the quality of testimony: concerning the credibility of witnesses and susceptibility of belief. Firstly, no miracle has a sufficient number of witnesses: educated, trustworthy witnesses are required. They would have to be “of such unquestioned good sense as to secure us against all delusions in themselves.”
What is Hume’s second problem with belief in miracles?
Secondly, people are prone to look for marvels and wonders. Hume suggests a religious believer may know the miracle is false but due to vested interest and bias, “perseveres in it, with the best intentions in the world, for the sake of promoting so holy a cause.” This easily account for delusions about miracles as Hume argued that religious people have a psychological need to believe in miracles: “A religionist may imagine he sees what has no reality.”
Who supported Hume’s argument?
Freud, who argues against miracles from human psychology: he advocated that religious beliefs were a “universal obsessional neurosis of humanity”, which sprung from psychological imbalances and people’s deep-rooted insecurity.
What was Swinburne’s argument regarding belief and sight?
Swinburne however, argues that belief doesn’t affect sight.
How does Franks David support Hume?
Finally, the sources of miracle stories are from ignorant people: making reference to the uneducated Galilean peasants in the New Testament gospels. Franks Davis said “With such widespread epistemic failure, religious experience generally would have to be considered an unreliable source of knowledge.” He highlighted the lack of comparability between miracles recorded in the Bible and present day: they relied on authority as opposed to rational inquiry.
How does Peter Vardy question Hume?
Hume also argued that a miracle has never been witnessed by a sufficient number. Peter Vardy questions this and asks what a sufficient number is. He is also wary as Hume has never experienced a miracle himself.
How is Hume supported by Lemony Snicket?
Hume also points to the contradictory nature of faith claims from a variety of traditions: unreliability here does not derive from that of the witnesses but rather that evidence is further contradicted by other witnesses. Lemony Snicket said that “Miracles are like meatballs, because nobody can exactly agree on what they are made of, where they come from, or how often they should appear.”
What does Gareth Moore argue that God is? This relates to possibility of miracles.
For atheists, the denial of God’s existence points to the impossibility of a miracle; Gareth Moore, an anti-realist, states that “God is nothing.”
What is the effect of miracles attempting to establish particular tradition?
indirectly attempting to destroy the validity of other religions. Miracles are therefore self-cancelling as witnesses to the truth of a religious system: for instance, an Islamic miracle supports islam and so discredits Christianity.
What did Wiles say about God being an interventionist God?
Wiles also rejected the idea of miracles. He disputed the idea of an interventionist God, calling creation “One single act of God.” He argued that God is transcendent, and that an interventionist God conflicts with the notion of free will.
A priori?
On an a priori basis, Hume concludes that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish.
A posteriori?
From a posteriori thinking, Hume also concludes that it is more rational to distrust the testimony about a miracle: no such testimony can outweigh our experience of the regularity of the laws of nature.
