In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Fogelin on Hume on Miracles Antony Flew I.Introduction In "What Hume Actually Said About Miracles"1 Robert Fogelin maintains that two contentions are essential to what, following Dorothy Coleman, he calls the "traditional interpretation" ofSection X ofthe first Enquiry. The first is that "Hume did not put forward an a priori argument intended to show that miracles are not possible"; the second, that "Hume did put forward an a priori (...) argument intended to show that testimony, however strong, could never make it reasonable to believe that a miracle had occurred." Fogelin further sees me as "virtually alone in challenging the traditional interpretation, arguing, in particular, that... Hume's argument was intended to do no more than place a 'check' on arguments put forward to establish... miracles on the basis oftestimony." Fogelin concludes his statement of what he wants to refute by quoting from my Hume's Philosophy ofBelief: What he is trying to demonstrate a priori in Part I is: not that, as a matter offact, miracles do not happen; but that, from the very nature of the concept—'from the very nature of the fact'—there must be a conflict of evidence required to show that they do. Fogelin's own contrary conclusion is agreeably forthright and decisive: "the traditional readingofHume's essay on miracles is wrong, and Flew, in rejecting the aspect ofthe traditional interpretation that is correct, is doubly wrong." II.What, indisputably, Hume did not say About all this the first thing which we need to recall is that Hume certainly does not present, and in consistency could not present, what is the most obvious a priori argument to show that miracles, defined as supernatural overridings ofthe order ofnature, must be (naturally and) physically impossible. That obvious a prior argument takes off from the semantic observation that to assert that a law of nature obtains is to assert, among other things, that the occurrence ofevents the occurrence of which would be inconsistent with the truth of that lawis (naturally and) physically impossible. Forit is only and precisely inasmuch as the assertion ofsuch laws embraces assertions ofphysical Volume XVI Number 2 141 ANTONYFLEW impossibility that it becomes logically possible to deduce contrary to fact implications from nomological propositions. It therefore follows immediately that miracles, thus defined, must be (naturally and) physically impossible. The key word 'miracle'has to be construed in this way since Hume is here concerned, primarily albeit not exclusively, with the possibility of proving the occurrence of a miracle "so as to be the foundation of a system of religion. I have taken care regularly to insert the parenthetic qualification "(naturally and)" in order to make it quite clear that no one is trying to rule out the occurrence of such Supernatural overridings as, by definition, fogically impossible. Being unable to discover any antecedent impression from which the idea of physical necessity could be derived, Hume disqualifies himself from appealing thus openly and directly to the necessary physical impossibility ofthe miraculous. But, even ifhe had to his own satisfaction succeededinlegitimatingthat crucial concept, it would still have been pointless here to point to the (natural and) physical impossibility of the miraculous—as if this was a reason for thinking that there have not in fact been and could not conceivably have been or be Supernatural overridings of the natural order. Had Fogelin noticed that Hume certainly did not present that obvious yet irrelevant a prior argument, he could not have concluded, not at least without emphatic qualification, "that this consensus on the first part of the traditional interpretation is unfounded."??. Proofs against proofs are no proofs In arguing about the interpretation of"the first part ofSection X ofthe Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" Fogelin insists upon attending only to what Hume wrote in that one part ofone section. But suppose we refuse to follow him in imposing this curiously unscholarly self-denying ordinance upon ourselves. Then we find, in the very first sentence of Part II of that same Section X, that Hume is at pains to warnreaders that we are to construe the previous Part I: not as offering "an apriori argument... to show that testimony, however strong, could never make it reasonable to... (shrink)