Hume On Miracles. Hume’s two-part argument  Part I: Can there ever be sufficient evidence for a miracle?  Part II: Is there any case of some event that.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Believing Where We Cannot Prove Philip Kitcher
Advertisements

It Takes More Faith to be an Atheist.
NOTE: CORRECTION TO SYLLABUS FOR ‘HUME ON CAUSATION’ WEEK 6 Mon May 2: Hume on inductive reasoning --Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, section.
Hume’s “Of miracles” Thesis: You can’t establish a religion on human testimony of miracles. He has an argument similar to one used by John Tillotson (moderate.
© Michael Lacewing Hume’s scepticism Michael Lacewing
Hume on Taste Hume's account of judgments of taste parallels his discussion of judgments or moral right and wrong.  Both accounts use the internal/external.
Moral Realism & the Challenge of Skepticism
Faith & Reason: Kierkegaard, Clifford, & Aquinas ~ slide 1
Miracles – Do They Exist? Hume’s Skeptical Challenge.
St. Thomas Aquinas Mr. Dunn. Basic facts about Thomistic philosophy Integration of Aristotle with Christianity Natural Theology, which is the use of reason.
Rights and Wrongs of Belief II Pascal, Blackburn.
Christianity “Always be prepared to give an answer (APOLOGIA) to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with.
The Problem of Knowledge. What new information would cause you to be less certain? So when we say “I’m certain that…” what are we saying? 3 things you.
 A religious experience (sometimes known as a spiritual experience, sacred experience, or mystical experience) is an experience which causes someone to.
Philosophy of Religion Michael Lacewing
Miracles. 1. What is your understanding of a miracle? 2. Write down 3 events you think would be classed as miraculous. 3. Are there different sorts of.
© Michael Lacewing Miracles Michael Lacewing
Miracles today Objectives To examine recent miracles Explore the importance of miracles for Christians.
Belief in God’s Testimony Lamont, J. Faith in God’s Revelation in the Bible 2011 pp.1-7.
© Michael Lacewing Faith without reason? Michael Lacewing
OBJECTIONS TO THE IDEA OF MIRACLES. Everything in our common experience tells us that when we encounter highly complex, organized systems or information,
PHL 201 Problems of Philosophy March 25 th Chapter Five, ‘God’
William James The Will to Believe. William James ( )  Professor at Harvard; one of the first truly original American philosophers  One of the.
Of Miracles.
INDUCTION. GENUS: General principle DIFFERENTIA: which states that events in nature are REGULAR, not RANDOM ANALYTIC DEF’N // The past, while not a carbon.
Aquinas’ Proofs The five ways.
LO: I will evaluate Hume’s argument against Miracles. Starter: Responses to Andrew Wilson’s chapter.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 5 The Ontological Argument By David Kelsey.
THE WORD OF GOD IS CHRISTIANITY RATIONAL?. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with.
Lecture 3: The nature of epistemic justification.
Philosophy 224 Divine Persons: Broad on Personal Belief.
Belief in God’s Testimony Lamont, J. Faith in God’s Revelation in the Bible 2011 pp.1-7.
Mormons do not feel threatened by science. They are not enemies of the rational world. They are not creationist. On human conduct, they tend to stress.
David Hume By Richard Jones and Dan Tedham. Biographical Details Born in 1711 in Scotland. Major work: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779) Contains.
Hume on miracles ~ slide 1
An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Miracles How Have Philosophers Interpreted Miracles? David HumeSwinburneM. ThompsonThomas Aquinas R. F Holland.
Ethical non-naturalism
LECTURE 19 THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CONTINUED. THE QUANTUM MECHANICAL OBJECTION DEPENDS UPON A PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION WE MIGHT REASONABLY SUSPEND.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 5 The Ontological Argument By David Kelsey.
LO: I will evaluate Hume’s argument against Miracles. Hmk – Prepare presentations for Tuesday’s lesson.
Anselm’s “1st” ontological argument Something than which nothing greater can be thought of cannot exist only as an idea in the mind because, in addition.
Miracles: Hume and Howard-Snyder. * For purposes of initial clarity, let's define a miracle as a worldly event that is not explicable by natural causes.
Hume on Ethics and the Passions The influencing motives of the will and of moral judgment Paola Chapa, Oct
HUME ON CAUSATION (Part 2 of 2) Text source: Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, section 7 part 2.
Understanding Science 5. The Burden of Proof © Colin Frayn,
Chapter 1: The cosmological argument AQA Religious Studies: Philosophy of Religion AS Level © Nelson Thornes Ltd 2008 Revision.
Two central questions What does it mean to talk of, or believe in, God? –Is talk about God talk about something that exists independently of us? Or a way.
The Argument  In modern times Philosophy has shifted from an interest in God to an interest in religion (from “Philosophical Theology” to “Philosophy.
From Pyrrhonian Skepticism to Justification for Belief.
PHIL 2 Philosophy: Ethics in Contemporary Society Week 2 Topic Outlines.
What is truth. Common theories Truth is correspondence between a proposition and a fact Truth is the coherence of propositions (or beliefs) Truth is what.
Philosophy Here and Now: chapter two
Miracles.
Philosophy of Religion
Different ideas about Miracles
Ethics: Theory and Practice
Week 6 Review.
Conceptual Physics Notes: Scientific Thinking
NOTE: CORRECTION TO SYLLABUS FOR ‘HUME ON CAUSATION’
Skepticism David Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and John Pollock’s “Brain in a vat” Monday, September 19th.
To learn about David Hume’s famous critique of Miracles.
Does Hume have a point? The laws of nature are based on human experience. However, these laws are based on experience to date. Scientific knowledge is.
Philosophy of Religion – Mr. DeZilva
Hume on miracles ~ slide 1
Skepticism David Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Ethics: Theory and Practice
How Did Jesus Attest Himself?
MIRACLES WHAT ARE THEY?.
Miracles – A Comparative Study of Two Key Scholars
Presentation transcript:

Hume On Miracles

Hume’s two-part argument  Part I: Can there ever be sufficient evidence for a miracle?  Part II: Is there any case of some event that we must suppose to be miraculous?  The answer to both these questions is, according to Hume, “no”.  Q: what are we to make of, and what place are we to allow for such concepts as “spirituality”, “faith”, or “ the transcendent,” given the above?

How much trust should we place in any belief concerning matters of fact?  Reasoning concerning matters of fact is never infallible or incorrigible (because facts are not entirely constant or invariable); therefore, trustworthiness of such reasoning is a matter of degree (ranging from “highest certainty” to “lowest species of moral evidence”)  Warranted belief in any matter of fact is, therefore, proportionate to evidence (“proof” is “invariant experience”; “probability” is “the balance of experiences”; “disproof” is “contrary to experience”)

How much trust should we place in ‘testimony’?  The degree of reliability of any testimony (however necessary or useful) is the same as with any matter of fact. Q: what ‘matter of fact’ are we talking about here? A: that ‘human testimony’ or ‘the reports of witnesses’ conform to the facts (corroboration of testimony)  The reliability of a particular testimony is dependent on a) the kind of fact to which attests and b) the kind of report it is (and the supposed invariances involved); and can amount to ‘proof’ where the two kinds are invariant, or ‘probability’ where they are not

How much trust should we place in testimony concerning ‘unusual’ facts?  Since belief is supposed to be proportionate to evidence, ‘unusual’ facts will always be merely probable (proportionate to the degree to which that fact deviates from the usual), since probability = ‘the balance of experiences’  The case is similarly restrictive for ‘extraordinary’ and ‘marvellous’  The probability of testimony concerning such facts is, therefore, proportionately reduced (that is, it is less than the probability of the fact alone)

How much trust should we place in testimony concerning ‘the miraculous’?  Since a ‘miracle’ =dfn. ‘a violation of the laws of nature’, the probability of any miracle will necessarily be less than the probability of the law in question (even in the limiting case where we have ‘proof’ of a miracle, we would have proof vs. proof, and this would still be less) Q: what is a ‘proof’ of a singular event?  Therefore, the probability of any testimony concerning such facts must (given the very nature of a miracle) be less

What conclusion, therefore?  “That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish”  Q: How does this apply to actual cases of religious belief (or belief in the ‘para’ normal)? To what extent does religious belief depend on the miraculous?

4 Reasons Not to Believe: reason #1  No actual case of a supposed miracle whereby the following were true: Witnesses were immune from delusion Witnesses were immune from delusion Witnesses were unimpeachable Witnesses were unimpeachable Witnesses had nothing to lose or gain Witnesses had nothing to lose or gain Event or fact so public so as to render detection of falsehood unavoidable Event or fact so public so as to render detection of falsehood unavoidable

Reason #2  “The passion of surprize and wonder, arising from miracles, being an agreeable emotion, gives a sensible tendency towards the belief of those events, from which it is derived.” That is, there is a natural human tendency to give credence to the spectacular vs. the mundane. (the evidence for this is the popularity of ‘prodigies’)  This tendency is abetted by delusional, deceitful, or self-interested reporters, and aided by eloquence, rumour, and gossip.

Reason #3  “It forms a strong presumption against all supernatural and miraculous relations, that they are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous nations” That is, supposed cases of such facts tend to occur at some considerable distance, in time or space, from the hearers, and to originate in circumstances which militate against sound judgment  Q: what can be the reason for this pattern of occurrence?

Reason # 4  The credibility of any miracle purporting to establish a particular sect undermines the credibility of miracles establishing competing sects (and therefore undermines the credibility of all miracles.) How? Miracle X (establishing religion Y) shows miracle Z to be false despite any and all testimony to the contrary (but miracle X is established via testimony) -- conversely, ‘exploding’ any supposed miracle undermines any other  This supported by: dismissal of ‘pagan’ miracles, dismissal of contemporary ‘christian’ miracles, exposure of fraud, hoax, or credulity

What conclusion, therefore?  “no human testimony can have such force as to prove a miracle, and make it a just foundation for any…system of religion.”  Miracles are adduced to support rational acceptance of religious dogma; yet, as Hume points out, they are insufficient for this. Faith, on the other hand, doesn’t require the miraculous (it is itself a miracle since it “subverts all the principles of…understanding, and gives…a determination to believe what is most contrary to custom and experience.”) Q: what is meant by “faith” here?

Faith and reason; faith and philosophy  Hume’s claim is that ‘reason’ and ‘faith’ yield different conclusions, and that religion can only be founded on the latter. Q: does Hume mean the same thing by ‘faith’ as does Aquinas?  Consider the following: “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth” (Pope John Paul II, Encyclical letter 14 Sept. 1998) Is it correct to say, as does the Pope here, that faith and reason aim at the same end -- truth?