Why Hume's Argument Against Miracles Fails

Показать описание

David Hume wrote a short essay called Of Miracles in 1748. Hume vigorously argued that one can ever rationally believe a miracle claim because there is always more evidence that one did not occur. Michael Shermer has gone so far as to say that “I think his treatise against miracles is pretty much a knockdown argument. Everything else is a footnote”. But is it really? I argue that Hume's argument proposes a false dilemma.

Join this channel to get access to perks:

Outro music:
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported

Photo of Nicodemus: Description
English: Jesus (Jonathan Roumie) and Nicodemus (Erick Avari) in episode 7 of The Chosen.
Date 4 July 2019, 17:20:23

Рекомендации по теме

Комментарии

Love the Thumbnail
It's the Bonk Boi

lileveyc

I had a long debate with someone about the nature of miracles.
Here's what he said
"Prove to me that miracles are not natural events.
Let God perform a miracle in a repeated scientific test."

To which I replied
"If a miracle were indeed a product of natural power it ceases to BE a miracle. One cannot assume naturalism when examining the case for miracles, or risk arguing from assumptions. And if God were to indeed perform miracles simply for the simple whims of His own creation, who is truly God, and who the subject? "

Ultimately, said fellow did not understand the definition of a miracle, for his next question was for me to define a miracle.
I asked why He would start a debate about miracles without knowing what a miracle was. And if he was simply asking for my definition, he should've done that before making erroneous claims about miracles

samuelhunter

Very happy Mike shared your channel! Excellent content.

__.Sara.__

*In response to Hume's argument:* According to everything I know, it would be impossible for the universe to exist on its own and it would be impossible for life to begin without an intelligent designer, so it is entirely appropriate for me to believe that it would be more miraculous for the universe and for life to exist without God. In Hume's words, the falsehood of God's existense would be more miraculous than the fact that God exists.

Moshugaani

I truly hope and pray that your number of subscribers grows exponentially.
You combine simple animations with brilliant narration. Thank you for the work you do. I've been to read through the sources you provide which has been extremely helpful.
Peace and grace to you bro!

wildgoose

C.S. Lewis gives a similar argument in his essay Miracles. He argues that the reason we see a virgin birth as miraculous is precisely because it is scientifically impossible, not because we are ignorant of it.

KainL

I like Lutheran Satire’s take on this in the video Connal and Donnal meet Richard Dawkins. Dawkins states that people don’t just rise from the dead, “and the Irish twins state “yeah, that’s kind of the point.”

medleysa

Thank you for this. So glad I found this channel. God is using so many Christians to defend, and teach others in regards to our faith. This channel is a blessing, God bless.

t.macneil

It seems as though the main problem with Hume’s argument against miracles is an ontological one, in that he is essentially defining miracles to be impossible to exist. And the problem with his argument would be clear even from a naturalist point of view. Suppose that I live amongst humans thousands of years ago and we have never seen an albino person be born. So we conclude that the natural law is that no humans have red eyes or any of the other characteristics of albinism present. One day, an albino person is born. This would contradict the natural law, so would we conclude by Hume’s argument that this albino person doesn’t exist and that our eyes deceive us. Now, this obviously isn’t a perfect argument, as the Humean could appeal to the fact that upon deeper inspection into humanness and albinism that this is a purely natural phenomenon, based on genetic factors and so forth. However, there are two problems with this. For starters, if we are to appeal to some higher up level of humanness to explain albinism than the one previously understood to humans when they believed albinism not possible, why couldn’t we appeal to a higher level of reality to explain miracles too. Hume is thus begging the question that only the natural is part of reality, when the very question we are concerned with is whether both the natural and supernatural are parts of reality. This could be additionally extended to the relationship of physics and metaphysics. The second problem would be this: typically arguments for Jesus and the Gospels are examined in a somewhat legal sense. We do not require a rigorous statistical analysis that Caesar Augustus lived the ways physics might to determine the validity of Newton’s laws, but instead rely on individual and important pieces of historical evidence, writings, and witness testimony. So to offer a thought experiment, suppose a murderer is on trial. A number of witnesses to the murder then describe the murderer leaping over a building and fleeing. There are too many witness at too many angles for it to be a singular delusion, and there is no known technology or laws of physics to explain how this man could have leaped over this building. The question is this, at what point, based on witness testimony, would we consider the witness testimony to be more valid than our understanding of the natural world.

ms-lrcv

As far as I remember, Hume’s argument against miracles is not to say that miracles aren’t possible; rather, he is making an epistemological claim rather than a metaphysical claim. That is, he claims that if there is an event that seems like a miracle (or seems to contradict the laws of nature), the rational thing to think always will be that you have made a mistake, or that something has gone wrong and you are mistaken. So to say that Hume doesn’t “prove” that miracles don’t exist is a strawman, since (if my memory serves me right) that isn’t something he argues.

jimmyfaulkner

Hume also begs the question when he says that "firm and unalterable experience has established these laws" in the sense that they have never been violated (i.e., a miracle has occurred), because in order to make that claim, he must first reject all miracle claims.

Furthermore, another philosopher contemporary with Hume (whose name I can't remember) points out that our "firm and unalterable experience" of the laws of nature is also largely based on testimony.

But then Hume only accepts the testimony saying no miracles have occurred while rejecting the testimony that says miracles have occurred. Why? Presumably because the testimony that no miracles have occurred concur with his own personal experience. But he says he would accept that testimony and reject the testimony in favor of miracles EVEN IF he saw with his own eyes what appeared to be a miracle.

Hume also don't consider the fact that specific evidence can outweigh background knowledge in our assessment of probability (note that the probability theorem had not been developed yet in his day).

WeakestAvenger

C.S. Lewis had an analogy. To paraphrase:

If I put $10 in my drawer today, and $10 tomorrow, then the third day I open it up and find $5 dollars, what do I conclude?

A. The laws of mathematics have been broken.
B. The laws regarding theft have been broken.

If natural order be interrupted, that does not mean science has 'broken down' or that we should toss away empiricism.

In fact, if you measure out perfectly how a shot in a pool game will put the 8-ball into the corner pocket, take the shot, and it doesn't go in... not because you messed up your calculations, but because I stick my hand on the table and stop it.
What do you do: do you then throw away the Newtonian physics calculations that let you predict that shot, or do you say something (or someone) intruded?

Taking what Paul wrote ("Why should anyone think that it is incredible that God raised the dead?), let's extrapolate further:
If God already has created the universe, why would any think it extreme that He could reach into the system He created?

Derek_Baumgartner

The p.r campaigns throughout the centuries sure aren't subtle about what becomes emphasized and from whom.. its almost like Hume was a distraction from all the liberation theology coming out of Scotland at that time.. and the fact that paley has been reduced to a wager and a watchmaker argument is.. almost an argument in and of itself. The man was a proper philosopher and theologian. You do a fantastic job with these videos. Short and poignant is a fitting medium for our time. Godspeed good sir!

onecowstampede

That first quote from Hume would be worthy of one of the benighted denizens of Reddit

TitusCastiglione

The definition of miracles as a "violation of the laws of nature" is also suspect, since it would only be a violation of the laws of nature if something within nature was producing the effect. But theists hold that these are the instances where God instead wills something directly should come about.

hadmiar