InspiringPhilosophy's straw man of David Hume's 'Of Miracles'

InspiringPhilosophy, going off a simplistic, misreading of David Hume that can be found regurgitated by Christian apologists and nowhere near any respectable philosophy course, decided to opt for a silly straw man.

Also, IP has cited IEP before for his illiterate critique of Hume, and he selectively cuts out or ignores the very last sentence:

"The interpretation of this passage requires considerable care. As many commentators have pointed out, if Hume’s argument is: a miracle is a violation of a law of nature, but laws of nature do not admit of counterexamples, therefore there are no miracles, then Hume clearly begs the question. Call this the Caricature Argument. William Paley first attributed this to Hume, and the interpretation has had proponents ever since; but this cannot be Hume’s argument."

[InspiringPhilosophy]

First off, I think you are have misrepresented me, in claiming I have straw-manned Hume. Remember I said, “Therefore because miracles are outside of our experience (which establishes the laws of nature) they are impossible.” Notice I started with “outside of our experience” and i assumed that would be obvious to anyone watching this means they were impossible in our experience to justify.

However, if you read “Hume’s Abject Failure” Earman notes there is still debate over precisely what Hume meant. Just assuming the final word doesn’t end this debate. Earman shows through his work that Hume does, in fact, mean a miracle is logically impossible. To quote Earman on page 8, “There is an even more obvious and troubling puzzle about Hume’s first definition: If a miracle is violation of a law of nature, then whether or not the violation is due to the intervention of the Deity, a miracle is logically impossible since, whatever else a law of nature is, it is an exceptionless regularity.” And therefore logically cannot be violated. The debate is hardly over on what Hume meant, and this, as Earman says, is Hume’s fault since he was not clear enough.

Second, you say Hume did not try to say all reports of miracles are lies, despite the pretty clear implication right before what you quote, “The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), ‘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 endeavors to establish…” But then later on, you give the example of Jesus’ resurrection, that their testimony is not enough to establish the miracle happened, which obviously means what follows is that the claim He did rise from the dead would have to be lie (whether they were deceived or did the deceiving). You say, “This is, roughly stated, Hume’s argument.” If so then where did i go wrong in saying Hume says all reported of miracles are lies, that seems to be what you said around 5:00?
Earman also notes Hume is just trying to dismiss all miracles with “solemnly utter platitudes.” That is, he is using sweeping dismissals to debunk miracles, not actually judging whether or not each claim is more likely than deceit, and that is the biggest objection to Hume - an attempt to dismiss all miracle claims as unacceptable because it goes against ordinary human experience and the laws of nature.

Third, you didn’t really go into the definition of miracles, but just said Hume’s definition was the same because in his end note he mentions it is caused by a deity. This hardly shows Hume’s definition is not unique and radical. Because the main issue is not that Hume agrees it would have to be caused by a deity, but whether or not if a miracle is when a deity inserts something new in the natural world or if if a miracle is when a deity violates a law of nature. Therefore they are vastly different. Hume’s definition is radical because he says a miracle is a violation of a natural law, not because he agrees the cause is an deity. My focus was on how he called it “a violation of a natural law, ” and trying to shift focus to where Hume agrees the cause it a deity misses my critique of his definition entirely, and dare I say, is a straw man.

[Sufferthorn]

I like how the music gets even more whimsical when he brings up the quantum stuff.

[guillatra]

I just watched the original video. I think you did a good job picking the relevant parts and ignoring the rest of the video. To me it seems hardly relevant to discuss if miracles are possible.

IP's ressource list looks like he read some christian apologetics and occasionally some other articles mentioned there.

[SantaIsMyLord]

Excellent video! Thanks for exposing IP's misrepresentations of Hume and his Quantological Retardism.

[andrewwells]

I was thinking about responding to his video.