Hume's Attitude to Miracles
Hume is often considered the starting point for philosophical discussions on and evaluations of miracles. The primary source is Chapter ten, "Of Miracles", in his "Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding" (1748).
David Hume defines miracles as being "a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent."
Hume does not think that we should believe in miracles because there will never be enough evidence to support belief in them. It is more likely that someone who says there has been a miracle is mistaken or lying.
The only time we should believe the claim that there has been a miracle is if accepting that there was no miracle would be more unbelievable (and of course, that will never be the case).
Hume's criticism of miracles is not that they can not happen, but that it would be impossible to know if they had happened or not. As such, his critique is an epistemological one: at what point can we say we "know something"? In the case of miracles, Hume's answer to that question is "never". Remember that for Hume, all knowledge is gained inductively. Since we can never have sufficient inductive knowledge of an alleged miracle, we can not claim to know that it is an event as he has defined it.
(Follow the link 'Criticisms of Hume' for a short evaluation of his position).
No comments:
Post a Comment