Hume’s Critque Of Miracles Flashcards
Why is humes an empiricist and why would this be a challenge for realists
Believed that all knowledge should be based on knowledge gained from the senses or empirical evidence making him a staunch empiricist
This evidential focus would be a problem for realists as they must demonstrate the existence of a real, objective event
Hume’s critique of miracles outlined in his work ‘ an enquiry concerning human understanding’, number 1: violation of the laws of nature
Miracles cannot simply be a crazy coincidence, they must instead go completely against what people would normally expect to happen according to the laws of nature as we observe them
E.g. an apple flying upwards when it fell from a tree
Second criteria: conflicting with uniform sense experience
As an empiricist, nothing is certain for Hume, everything we know is a matter of possibility, based on our experience so far. Hume says, however that our sense experience is consistent and reliable and we should trust that it properly informs us about the laws of nature. Things which go against our regular sense experience, therefore, can be counted as miracles
E.g. sense exercises dictates humans cannot walk on water
3rd criteria; have a supernatural cause
Miracles involves the intervention of a supernatural power, often attributed to a deity, as no natural explanation can account for the event.
This supernatural cause is necessary because if the event could be explained through natural processes, it would no longer qualify as a miracle
Why is Hume’s ‘maximally improbable’ definition of a miracle inductive
If u accept his definition of miracles, then the conclusion must follow that they are maximally improbable
What does Hume suggest about witness testimony through this quote: ‘no human testimony can have such force as to prove a miracle’’
Humes suggests that it is impossible for any testimony made by a human to be believable or reliable enough to prove a miracle.
Hume thinks that our knowledge of laws of nature are established by sense experience.
Everything we observe something fall to the ground we confirm the law of gravity.
Because natural laws are so well established through habitual experience and repeated observation, any claim that natural laws has been violated is deeply suspect.
Therefore, Hume argues that the evidence for a miracles would have to be extraordinary and reliable that it could overcome the enormous weight of the evidence for natural laws being violated in order for the 3rd person to believe it.
A miracle, by definition is maximally improbable therefore the likelihood that the witness is mistaken or lying is always a better explanation of events than the occurrence of a miracle
How does Hume use our knowledge of the human brain and behaviour to further support his claim that people are either lying or mistaken about witnessing miracles.
1) humans are naturally credulous - people are willing to believe what they hear, which means that these miracles, which were first based on lies or mistakes, have stood the test of time
2) witness and listener analysis
What is the ‘witness’
Humans are psychologically prone to exaggeration, false memory and deception.
Witnessed reported ‘miracles’ are therefore products of misinterpret events, fabricated stories or exaggerations of their experiences due to psychological tendencies to embellish or conform to social expectations.
This makes the testimony in favour of miracles highly suspect
What is the ‘listener’
Humans are naturally credulous (willing to believe what we hear).
This extends to the reality of miracles. Our psychological tendencies such as emotional reactions and confirmation bias (tendency to believe something which supports ones own belief system) makes us prone to believing extraordinary claims that are in conflict with the uniformity of nature
E.g. if a religious believer had thought to have experienced a miracle, her understanding of the event makes sense within the context of her religious life
Hume- only those from the most ‘ignorant and barbarous nations’ believe in miracles (include in conclusion of Hume’s paragraph, agreeing w him)
Only the uneducated and superstitious belief in miracles, because it is clear from our understanding of psychology how they arise
However, at the time of Jesus, Hume thinks it was more justified to believe in miracles why?
Because there was less scientific knowledge about psychology.
But he would continue to deny Jesus miracles as a misinterpretation of events or fabricated exaggerated stories written by human authors to elevate Jesus status at the time
Nowadays, he believes it is foolish to believe these miracles actually happened.
How would swinburnes principles of credulity and testimony refute humes critique of miracles
Whilst Hume argues that oracles are maximally improbable and not rational to believe in, Swinburne maintains that miracles are possible. He emphasises the importance of testimony and the role of miracles in supporting the existence of god and the truth of religious claims.
For Swinburne, miracles are extraordinary but not inherently impossible, and they can provide valuable evidence in support of a theistic worldview.
What might Kierkegaard say about Hume’s critique of miracles
Miracles are not to be rationalised but accepted through a leap of faith.
Ultimately, for Kierkegaard, miracles are less about proving the supernatural and more about pointing to the profound mystery of god.
