Hume's Argument against Miracles

This paper defends David Hume's "Of Miracles" from John Earman's (2000) Bayesian attack by showing that Earman misrepresents Hume's argument against believing in miracles and misunderstands Hume's epistemology of probable belief. It argues, moreover, that Hume's account of evidence is fundamentally non-mathematical and thus cannot be properly represented in a Bayesian framework. Hume's account of probability is show to be consistent with a long and laudable tradition of evidential reasoning going back to ancient Roman law.

Hume famously argues that the laws of nature provide us with decisive reason to believe that any testimony of a miracle is false. In this paper, I argue that the laws of nature, as such, give us no reason at all to believe that the testimony of a miracle is false. I first argue that Hume’s proof is unsuccessful if we assume the Humean view of laws, and then I argue that Hume’s proof is unsuccessful even if we assume the (...) governing view of laws. I conclude that regardless of which kind of view we adopt, the fact that a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature does not give us any reason to believe it did not happen. (shrink)

this article provides a response to David Hume’s argument against the plausibility of miracles as found in Section 10 of his An enquiry concerning human understanding by means of Charles Sanders Peirce’s method of retroduction, hypothetic inference, and abduction, as it is explicated and applied in his article entitled A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God, rather than fo‐ cusing primarily on Peirce’s explicit reaction to Hume in regard to miracles, as found in Hume on miracles. the main focus (...) will be on Peirce’s neglected argument rather than his explicit con ontation with Hume on the issue of miracles, because his criticisms of Hume demands a methodological approach appropriate for scienti cally analysing surprising phenomena or outliers, of which miracles or the reality of god would be but two examples amongst many. this article, then, consists of an attempt to construct this method as one that draws inferences neither a priori nor a posteriori, but per posterius, because such a method is capable of rigorously questioning rogue or surprising phenomena, e.g. miracles. (shrink)

Hume’s chapter “Of Miracles” has been widely discussed, and one issue is that Hume seems to simply beg the question. Hume has a strong but implicit naturalist bias when he argues against the existence of reliable testimony for miracles. In this article, I explain that Hume begs the question, despite what he says about the possibility of miracles occurring. e main point is that he never describes a violation of the laws of nature that could not be explained by scientific (...) theories. (shrink)

Bolzano hat seine Wahrscheinlichkeitslehre in 15 Punkten im § 14 des zweiten Teils seiner Religionswissenschaft sowie in 20 Punkten im § 161 des zweiten Bandes seiner Wissenschaftslehre niedergelegt. (Ich verweise auf die Religionswissenschaft mit 'RW II', auf die Wissenschaftslehre mit 'WL II'.) In der RW II (vgl. p. 37) ist seine Wahrscheinlichkeitslehre eingebettet in seine Ausführungen "Über die Natur der historischen Erkenntniß, besonders in Hinsicht auf Wunder", und die Lehrsätze, die er dort zusammenstellt, dienen dem ausdrücklichen Zweck, mit mathematischem Rüstzeug (...) Lehrmeinungen entgegentreten zu können, gemäß denen Wundererzählungen keine Glaubwürdigkeit zukommen könne. In der WL II (vgl. p. 171) führt Bolzano im großen und ganzen dieselben Lehrsätze an wie in der RW II, entwickelt nun aber die Wahrscheinlichkeitslehre innerhalb seiner Lehre von den Sätzen an sich. Dabei orientiert er sich zwar durchaus an den Lehrsätzen in den damaligen "Schriften über die Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung" (vg. WL II, p. 190), korrigiert aber dort, wo es ihm nötig erscheint (vgl. WL II, pp. 187–191), und leistet so im Grunde eine Reformulierung des elementaren Teils der Wahrscheinlichkeitslehre seiner Zeit innerhalb seiner logischen Theorie von den Sätzen an sich. — Ich bezwecke hier keine historische Studie über Bolzanos Wahrscheinlichkeitslehre, obwohl es von Interesse sein mag, herauszuschälen, worin Bolzano mit welchen Wahrscheinlichkeitstheoretikern seiner Zeit übereinstimmt, und worin nicht, insbesondere welche Schwächen von Bolzanos Wahrscheinlichkeitslehre Schwächen aller damaligen Wahrscheinlichkeitslehren waren. Eine wichtige systematische Studie über Bolzanos Wahrscheinlichkeitslehre bestünde — wie von Berg (1962, pp. 148-149) ansatzweise begonnen — in einer exakten Rekonstruktion seiner Wahrscheinlichkeitslehre innerhalb eines konsistenten logischen Systems der Sätze an sich. Ich werde im folgenden etwas bei weitem Bescheideneres, doch möglicherweise durchaus Fruchtbares versuchen, nämlich die Lehrsätze von Bolzanos Wahrscheinlichkeitslehre in die Sprache einer heutigen Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie zu übersetzen und die übersetzten Lehrsätze dort herzuleiten, soweit dies möglich ist. Man könnte dann in einem zweiten Schritt, der hier nicht mehr unternommen wird, untersuchen, inwieweit jene Thesen, die den Herleitungstest überstanden haben, jenen Zweck erfüllen, den Bolzano ihnen ursprünglich zugedacht hat: als mathematisches Rüstzeug für seine Argumentationen gegen die Auffassung zu dienen, Wundererzählungen könnten nicht glaubwürdig sein. (shrink)

According to the Christian religion, Jesus was “crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again”. I take it that this rising again—the Resurrection of Jesus, as it’s sometimes called—is, according to the Christian religion, an historical event, just like his crucifixion, death, and burial. And I would have thought that to investigate whether the Resurrection occurred, we would need to do some historical research: we would need to assess the reliability of (...) the New Testament documents and related manuscripts; we would need to look into the credibility of the witnesses to his post-mortem appearances, the empty tomb, and the like. The task looks rather daunting. But, according to David Hume, we don’t have to do anything of the kind. For no matter how strong the testimony in favor of a miracle is—indeed, even if we “suppose…that the testimony considered apart and in itself, amounts to an entire proof”—we have at our disposal a “full proof…against the existence of any miracle”. So we can avoid all that tedious historical work. We can simply use Hume’s shortcut, a proof against the existence of any miracle, and hence a proof against the Resurrection. So Hume says he has a “a decisive argument,” “an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion,” superstitious delusions like the Resurrection. There is good news and bad news in Hume’s proclamation. The good news is that he really has two arguments, not just one—or, at any rate, many scholars discern in his writings two arguments. The bad news is that neither succeeds; at any rate, try as I might, I can’t see how they do. (shrink)