- Hume’s often cited argument against miracles is, in brief, that these should be rejected because they contravene the laws of nature that have been verified over and over again. The argument continues with the claims that the human mind is unstable and no miracle has in fact had enough witnesses of sufficient honesty, intelligence, and education. In addition, given that miracles are common in most religions and, given the fact that religions contradict each other, these miracles cannot be all true therefore is best to reject all. Furthermore, an Indian prince not having experienced frozen water is simply adjusting his knowledge rather than accepting a miracle testimony when told by several experts about the effects of coldness on water. The Indian prince witnesses scientific progress, not a miracle.
- To date, the pro-miracles reply is weak and includes:
- The definition given need not be accepted and “an event need not violate a natural law in order to be accounted miraculous”
- Hume’s argument is circular because it rests upon the claim that laws of nature are supported by exceptionless testimony, but testimony can only be accounted exceptionless if we discount the occurrence of miracles.
- Non-believers simply refuse to understand
- Better pro-miracle arguments are:
- Miracles are consistent with an all powerful God above the laws of nature.
- Miracles do stand out by necessity (to be impactful), therefore they are unique and clear departures from the norm. Common occurrence miracles lose their power of persuasion just as novel technologies (human flight, microbiology, nuclear energy, etc.) are perceived as quasi-miraculous when first introduced and become banal in time.
- All aspects of the universe in general and life in particular are of course common miracles that remind some of us of God’s power. But dull minds get used to them and eventually offer clearly ridiculous Godless alternative explanations to these daily miracles (such as “evolution”). To jolt mankind out of its lethargy, God sends periodic messages in the form of unique miracles. How else other than through miracles would God show His powers to the mortals?
- Hume had no clue about, hence misused probabilities. Because miracles are by their nature unique (as shown), Hume’s followers should compare their probability to the probability of “no miracles whatsoever given an infinity of samples”, not with the probability of a sample conforming to the laws of nature. In other words, the probability of Jesus walking on water should not be compared with that of the few observed sinking bodies in water (100%), but with the probability of “ALL current and past contacts with the water resulted in sinking” (0% or very low). And since none of us has observed more than a very tiny fraction of these events, it is fallacious to conclude from these that all bodies always sink in water. To be absolutely positively sure about all-always, one would have to observe all events and confirm the always hypothesis. Clearly, neither Hume, nor any of his followers has done that.
- Just because many imitators are evidently lying, it doesn’t follow that there are no authentic miracles. This is self evident and requires no further explanation.
- While religions do generally disagree, miracles do not necessarily disagree with one another. And even religious disagreements are much more likely to be caused by misunderstanding of God and His will rather than by one religion being true when all others are false (and Hume’s followers hope atheism is the one true religion).
Links:
https://www.mbu.edu/seminary/a-critique-of-david-humes-on-miracles/
https://www.bartleby.com/37/3/14.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Miracles
How is the reverse of that also not true? If one doesn’t believe in miracles doesn’t anything that appears to be a miracle just become relegated to the unexplained?
And with that non-religion collapses on its own circularity .
No. Because of this part:
“…on the basis of testimony alone…
Nope.
fixed that for you. No thanks necessary!
Not taking your word for it.
Hume is dead. But bad ideas never die, Darwin.
It is crystal clear. And you’re a smart boy.
Really? Are you at all aware of the justice system?
And you think people that suffered and died for Christ have no credibility? Maybe they were in just for the money and the good life?
What?!? That doesn’t follow. Read 3.d. and 3.e. again.
Good point! But don’t worry. They do believe in the “miracle” of “evolution”. Cause it’s “science”. That’s why.
Call my alleged bluff then. Present a case of human limb regrowth and see how I respond. That will sure show everyone won’t it?
Evolution is a miracle now? That seems quite odd but I’ll consider the source.
acceptance of evolution as true is a result of evidence something that appears lacking from your post(s)
They may have had the courage of their convictions but that is not evidence for the existence of God any more than the deaths of the followers of Marshall Applewhite made the existence of the alleged Hale Bop spaceship true.
PeterP,
When you say a human limb regrows, what do you mean exactly? Do you mean you watch it regrow? Do you mean you hear about it? Do you mean you see a film of it happening? Or must it be your limb? Because I guarantee it, there would be a whole gang of skeptics who would say they don’t believe it is real. Or how can you prove it wasn’t some magic trick. Or simply, y’all, I don’t know what happened but it sure wasn’t God! Must have been relics of a lizard gene. And what about replication, only once!
It would never end. So yea, it’s a bluff alright.
If you could get a whole group of skeptics to agree on what a miracle would be now that would be a miracle.
The bluff is on your side. Miracles are claimed for all sorts of things, and yet never for limb regrowth.
There are not even any contested cases out there!
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/miracle
A man flying round in a chair hundreds of years ago. That’d count for me.
Limb regrowth on demand, like when people get up out of wheelchairs and dance – that’d count as a miracle for me.
Cancer remission, not so much.
You should talk to William J Murray. His wife was cured of cancer by a faith healer! Was that a miracle?
I suppose you’d prefer any such claims to be met with credulity and not be challenged? Is that how you approach such claims? With unquestioning acceptance? No wonder everything is a miracle in phoodoo world….
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/nov/11/shakira-interview-singing-el-dorado-tour-film-super-bowl
Miracle?
There you go! Perfect illustration of equivocation. Thank you for confirming KN’s point so clearly.
I was going to bring that up. It was never very clear whether there was any formal diagnosis.
Not smart enough to work out what you mean when you use the word “miracle”. You seem to be equivocating in phoodoo style.
It seems phoodoo disagrees that fakes need to be weeded out. We should just believe claims of miracles apparently without any questioning of them….
Is that right phoodoo?
Whereas a limb being there or not is really a matter of public record….
So can Nonlin help me out and read KN’s comment on the distinction between informal language “babies are miracles” and events that, if as described, violate the laws of nature such as gravity, conservation of mass and energy etc. Then can he decide in what sense he is using “miracle”?
ETA very late typo correction
I did notice a claim that a Spanish war veteran had restored his missing leg by rubbing the stump with holy oil (it’s an example Hume uses – that’s where I read it 🙂 ). If it worked once, why not again?
I don’t doubt that those who suffered and died for Christ did so out of deep conviction and sincere belief. But conviction is not evidence that the belief is true.
3.d is false. The Enquiry has a whole section on probability. It is short but occupies a crucial part in the text, as the transition between skepticism about causal reasoning (the “problem of induction”) and the nuanced use of causal reasoning in the rest of the book.
3.e isn’t relevant to discussion of Hume because his concern lies with miracles believed on the basis of testimony alone. If you want to have a discussion about whether it would be reasonable to believe that some phenomenon one has personally observed is a miracle, we can talk about that, too. But Hume doesn’t address that very much.
Interestingly, the closest he comes is when he includes reports of Catholic miracles. As an agnostic in a society dominated by the Church of Scotland, and at a time when the majority of Scottish intellectuals were Deists strongly influenced by Stoicism, Hume could safely rely on exploiting his audience’s anti-Catholic prejudice as a rhetorical tool for then extrapolating a far more wide-ranging critique of revealed religion as such.
This attempt at a parallel construction doesn’t work because Hume’s focus on the role of testimony here. Hume is not addressing the case of someone who doesn’t believe in miracles, sees something that they can’t explain or even fully comprehend, and then dismisses it. That’s just not what Hume is interested in. If you want to talk about that kind of case, ok, fine — but let’s not muddy the waters by bringing Hume into that discussion.
Kantian Naturalist,
All evidence works together. The gospels are easier to believe if the evidence supports that we are in a created universe.
Why is it not ok to use both to come up with your conclusion.
If something is revealed then the revelation is based on evidence. A conclusion based on evidence is not circular. Circular reasoning means you are assuming your conclusion.
An issue with Humes argument appears to be that people use testimonial revelation alone to come to their conclusion and that may not be a reasonable assumption.
It depends on what your habitual expectations are based on. Do you ignore evidence just because it runs counter to your everyday expectations? Maybe your everyday expectations are clouded by your current paradigm you are operating under.
I agree with this reasoning. Additional testimony also helps build confidence in a conclusion.
A strong piece of evidence for me regarding the Christian religion is the connectivity of the Old and New Testament. This is being revealed now on a wider scale because of analytical biblical tools that are becoming available online.
The evidence is the assumption that something is “revealed”.
Not if the evidence is an assumption.
So close and yet so far away.
Wouldn’t it follow then that belief of people who believed in Christian religion ,before these tools were developed, was less justified by the evidence?
Which is exactly what you’re doing with your “magic mind POOF!” claims – assuming supernatural creation not based on any evidence but solely on your religious beliefs.
Everyone here sees that clearly except you Bill. Why is that?
What do you think when someone brings up the subject of human limb regrowth?
Do you have a case history of someone watching a human limb regrowing?
What do you mean when you wrote ‘hear about it’? Do you mean inliine at the grocery store overhearing someone talking about a Weekly World News article? Have you heard about a onstance of huan limb regrowth?
What kind of film? Like a Hollywood scify flick? Not an amputee so need of additional limbs though a few less arthritic joints would be appreciated.
And with good reason folks should be skeptical. It isn’t like human history has no recorded instances of folks faking illness, and amputated limbs, in order to gain financially. We see it on gofundme scams to the time honored practices of beggers around the world faking blindness, illness and amputated limbs. For example:
We also have an example of a fake amputee having the severed limb regrow overnight (replete with his old scars) in the 1600’s alleged to be a miracle. It wasn’t a miracle just another human scamming other humans for financial gain. The miracle of Calanda is just a case of a beggar faking disability for .
So yes phoodoo folks should be skeptical of claims people make. There is a very hefty history of liars scamming people.
Don’t you think that could be detected given current technology?
I never thought you were serious when you requested that folks present what they would consider a miracle. You could call my bluff. I mean what is preventing you from doing so? Perhaps a lack of human limb regrowth stories?
What would phoodoo consider as evidence/validatioon that a human limb has been regrown in order to be accepted as a being a miracle?
I am hopeful that as research continues that humans will be able to regrow limbs. current research is promisng but, obviously, has a long way to go.
https://humanlimbregeneration.com/research/
Adapa,
What you’re doing is projecting. You have a strong desire for what ever reason that you do not have to answer to a higher morality or authority. Everything around you can be called a poof. There is something rather than nothing. Whats your explanation?
newton,
No. Many people who post here do not want to hear the evidence as it is an inconvenient truth to their life style. The evidence is compelling but cannot be comprehended if you have a filter that rejects all the positive evidence. Once you cross over and start to accept the evidence it is stunning. When I first posted here I was not aware of this evidence but was open to it. There is no document that has ever been produced which I have read that compares to the Bible both New and Old Testament.
Not really, Bill. Religion requires faith….a belief not-based on evidence or even despite the evidence.
What we see is a filter used to ignore all the negative points while only focusing on the positive points. A classic example of this, outside of your posts, would be cold readings where people are duped into believing all manner of things….even allegedly communicating with dead family members, e.g., John Edwards.
PeterP,
.
Faith definition
You start your argument by misrepresenting what faith is. You are equating faith to blind faith. Peter, every belief require faith. The is no assumption free belief.
This is a potentially useful distinction. I interpret what you call faith in the sense of “I do believe it’s raining”. And blind faith is “I do believe in leprechauns.” Which clarifies the distinction: Beliefs backed by evidence require faith that evidence matters and can be correctly interpreted and maybe replicated. Blind beliefs are backed by no evidence, or by the denial or careful misinterpretation of observation. Blind faith is wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is where gods come from.
ROFL.
Wonder why you didn’t post this portion of the definition of faith?
I think everyone realizes why you did not post the complete definition for faith it is inconvienient for you andn you wished to ‘hide’ it from discussion. Not surprising at all.
This was already addressed.
Not what this OP is about.
Do you think this guy is sincere and or aware? I don’t.
I am not inventing words here and not creating a new topic as you should have noticed.
Corneel asked the same exact question. See that reply.
No, it wasn’t.
But it does address your posted comment. Sorry that bothers you so much. Others have pointed out the same, obvious, point that dying for a conviction does not mean the conviction is true.
You certainy are free to call my bluff and post your examples of human limb regrowth. Wonder why you haven’t done so already?
No? If technology/ discoveries provide new evidence unavailable to earlier generations, seems logical the earlier generations had less evidence and would require more faith.
“ Life style “ seems double edged sword , After all, if holding a certain belief is required for one to gain eternal happiness ,it seems legitimate to question the intellectual vigor and open mindedness such a person might have to alternate explanations. That would truly be inconvenient for a future lifestyle.
From what I can see , most of your evidence consists of the limitations of scientific knowledge not a positive explanation of how a particular immaterial being created what we observe. How did the Being do it?
Perhaps
I do not doubt that is your belief, personally if I was God I would not be happy about the way I was portrayed in the OT.
PeterP,
My definition is directly pulled from the dictionary. Read Flints post as he has accurately differentiated faith from blind faith. You have defined blind religious faith.
You are not proving your assertion.
Read 3.b. and 3.c. You will not be served individual miracles.
On another note, why don’t you try to make Kant proud instead?
newton,
Your understanding of the Old testament is based on secular spin most likely. The God of the Old testament is the same as the God of the New Testament. It all is one cohesive story. Here are a couple of videos that show the connection. The example is Isaiah OT and Luke NT.
Luke
Isaiah
Of course. Neither does it mean the conviction is false.
Yet Hume & Co think we should reject the conviction.
If you have a problem with the posted definition take it up with the dictionary.
Your posted definition, Bill, has nothing to do with an evidence-based belief system. Trust is not evidence nor is confidence in someone. Both can be misguided.
No they don’t advocate outright rejection but point out, rightly so, the problem of blindly accepting testimonials given the, often, lack of veracity for the claims.
Try again.
newton,
You can separate how He did it from evidence he did it. The properties if atoms are evidence. The properties of living cells are evidence. The properties of human consciousness are evidence.
PeterP,
The secular positioning of Christians as only containing blind faith is nonsense. There are many well educated Christians who’s faith is grounded in evidence. Atheism in its extreme (almost certainly no God) is the poster child of blind faith.
I’ll be brutally honest. I’m not impressed with your OP nor your responses to requests for clarification. You equivocate and fail to respond to simple questions. To post an OP on “Miracles” and then refuse to clarify what you mean by the word seems a waste of effort, as is trying to engage with you.
Not really, Bill.
No evidence outside of their Bible. Assertions about atoms need a bit of fleshing out prior to assiging them to Divine origin. Does intrastellar fusion of hydrogen produce new elements?
Atheists believe in one less god than you do, Bill. Hardly a firm foundation for belief or criticism.
PeterP,
Yes, and all the assumptions that belief carries.
I don’t care who are that is soe down right funny stuff coming from you, Bill. thanks for the laugh!
WTF are babbling about now Bill? What does “answering to a higher authority” have to do with your unsupported fantasy claim a magic mind POOFED all biological life into existence?
You claimed that Hume had no clue about probabilities. Pointing out that he had a section about probabilities in the Enquiry shows that he knew about them. If you want to argue that he misunderstood probabilistic reasoning, by all means, make your case.
3.b and 3.c are irrelevant to Hume’s argument, for reasons I’ve already clarified several times in this thread.
That’s what I write about when I’m not wasting time or blowing off steam here.
Sounds you don’t need to know how something happened or didn’t happen to have evidence God did it .at some point.
How does that hypothesis help to discover how things work?
OK, how all those things occurred is still in question, and those are the questions science looks for. The causal chain.
Thanks for doing both around here, it is thought provoking.