Miracles (Hume)

Question 1

Facts about Hume (introduction)

Answer 1

18th Century “Enlightenment period”
Scottish
Empirical Induction
Contrary to common Christian beliefs of “miracles as proof of revelation and God”
Miracles are “violations of Laws of nature”

Question 2

Humes definition of miracles (short+long)

Answer 2

short: “violation of laws of nature”
long: “transgression it a law of nature by a particulate volition of the deity”

Question 3

Holland’s view of miracles?

Answer 3

Miracles “could be a set of coincidental events to which we give religious significance”

Question 4

Humes argument: Most miracle stories flcomr from uncivilised/barbaric nations?
Counter?

Answer 4

Widespread belief in many miracles in UK/USA. BUT fewer miracle reports in modern (more documented times)

Question 5

Humes 4 Practical Arguments against miracles:

Answer 5

1: Quality of WITNESS
2: PSYCHOLOGICAL exploitation
3: Not in MODERN times
4: ALL RELIGIONS have miracles. Can’t be all true

Question 6

Humes Argument: we should only believe miracles if we have solid evidence.
Supporting quote, and Strength?

Answer 6

“Wise men proportion their belief to the evidence”

STRENGTH: As miracles are unbelievable by definition then MORE CONTRARY EVIDENCE=MORE CAUTIOUS. Ockham’s razor > overturning laws

Question 7

Humes argument: Testimony: Quality of WITNESS.
Character, number of witnesses and any vested interest?
COUNTER?

Answer 7

COUNTER: all RELIGIOUS miracles are untrue due to VESTED INTEREST.

also HARD to judge character.