David Hume

• What is Hume's definition of miracles?


  "A miracle may be accurately defined, a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent"
• Is Hume a realist or anti-realist?

  Realist
• What is an empiricist?


  Knowledge derives from sense experience
• What principle is fundamental to science which Hume applies to his account of miracles?


  The more evidence we have for an event, the higher its probability
• What is a miracle according to Hume?


  - a miracle is a violation of a law of nature

  - a miracle has to be willed by the deity

  - the miracle has to be done by 'the interposition of some invisible agent
• What is the four steps argument?


  1. Witness testimony has to become more reliable in direct proportion to the improbability of what the witness claims to have observed.

  2. The most improbable event would be a violation of the laws of nature because the evidence of the 'firm and unalterable experience' on which the law is based must contradict the claim that a miracle has happened

  3. So the reported event is maximally improbable

  4. So the probability that the witnesses are lying or mistaken is always greater than the probability that a miracle has occurred
• What is Hume's conclusion?


  '... therefore we may establish it as a maxim, that no human testimony can have such force as to prove a miracle, and make it a just foundation for any ... system of religion
• How does psychology support Hume?


  - we cannot find one sample of a miracle properly attested by men of sense, integrity, education and learning. None of the miracle accounts would convince us that the witnesses were not deluded, mistaken or lying

  - humans are credulous; the feeling of surprise and wonder from miracles is enough to make people of common sense less than sensible

  -
• Why is Hume's argument weak because of its inductive nature?


  Hume argued that his argument is as close to a 'proof' you can get but inductive arguments are NOT proofs - they deal in probability!
• What does Hume say to back up his argument?


  He said there can never be enough evidence to prove a miracle, not that a miracle can never occur. A law of nature cannot dictate what must happen; it summarises what has been found to happen. Miracles are improbable, but it does not mean that they don't happen
• How is Hume's argument different to a Christian argument?

  Hume says that there are no reliable observations of violations of natural law, whereas Christians say there are. Moreover, Hume claims that the improbability makes the miracle less likely to occur, but Christians see this as a strength because it is a necessary condition for a miracle to happen