Abstract
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. The main point is that he never describes a violation of the laws of nature that could not be explained by scientific theories.
Highlights
A Hume’s chapter “Of Miracles” has been widely discussed, and one issue is that Hume seems to beg the question
It is in the second definition that we find a religious component
A ? e main objection to Hume’s account of miracles, which can be found in Johnson, Earman or Anscombe, is that Hume begs the question: by giving a definition of a miracle which includes a reference to laws of nature, Hume presupposes the absolute impossibility of any miracle ever occurring
Summary
A Hume’s chapter “Of Miracles” has been widely discussed, and one issue is that Hume seems to beg the question. Hume describes imaginary cases of believable reports of miracles, and seems to accept the possibility that a miracle testimony could override our general suspicions concerning the rationality of beliefs of this kind.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
