miracle hume essay 1
Evaluate Hume’s claim that miracles are the least likely of events (35)
A miracle is often defined as an extraordinary event which cannot be explained either by natural or scientific laws. However, this definition of miracles often varies person to person. R.H. Holland defines miracles as a “remarkable and beneficial coincidence that is interpreted in a religious fashion,” whereas David Hume, writing during the Enlightenment period as an empiricist claimed that miracles are both improbable and irrational. In his book, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume defined miracles as a violation of the laws of nature. Although Hume may say that miracles are the least likely of events, that does not lead on to say that they do not occur at all; it is possible to say that they do occur but it is not very likely. Also, it is difficult to explain these extraordinary events, and so a miracle is a good way of explaining these things. This essay will discuss Hume’s claim, and will come to the conclusion that miracles are not the least likely of events.
Hume uses both an a priori and inductive argument to challenge miracles, which comes from his definition of a miracle as “a transgression of a law of nature which a particular volition of the Deity interposition of some invisible agent.” Hume’s challenge relies on if the laws of nature are fixed, if they are, and the definition of a miracle is that it breaks the laws of nature, then this is a contradiction. If miracles are a contradiction then it is rational to believe that they do not occur. A Biblical example of a miracle is Jesus walking on water - it goes against what we know about gravity and about the properties of water which are both scientific and natural laws, and so it is hard to believe that his could of happened, but due to witnesses it is thought to be true. Hume argues against witnesses as he says it seems more logical to say that the witness is incorrect than to argue that the miracle actually happened.
A miracle is often defined as an extraordinary event which cannot be explained either by natural or scientific laws. However, this definition of miracles often varies person to person. R.H. Holland defines miracles as a “remarkable and beneficial coincidence that is interpreted in a religious fashion,” whereas David Hume, writing during the Enlightenment period as an empiricist claimed that miracles are both improbable and irrational. In his book, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume defined miracles as a violation of the laws of nature. Although Hume may say that miracles are the least likely of events, that does not lead on to say that they do not occur at all; it is possible to say that they do occur but it is not very likely. Also, it is difficult to explain these extraordinary events, and so a miracle is a good way of explaining these things. This essay will discuss Hume’s claim, and will come to the conclusion that miracles are not the least likely of events.
Hume uses both an a priori and inductive argument to challenge miracles, which comes from his definition of a miracle as “a transgression of a law of nature which a particular volition of the Deity interposition of some invisible agent.” Hume’s challenge relies on if the laws of nature are fixed, if they are, and the definition of a miracle is that it breaks the laws of nature, then this is a contradiction. If miracles are a contradiction then it is rational to believe that they do not occur. A Biblical example of a miracle is Jesus walking on water - it goes against what we know about gravity and about the properties of water which are both scientific and natural laws, and so it is hard to believe that his could of happened, but due to witnesses it is thought to be true. Hume argues against witnesses as he says it seems more logical to say that the witness is incorrect than to argue that the miracle actually happened.