Hume on miracles.

You’re picking at semantics now. If the only sense we can use to know anything is our senses, and there is no such thing as a reliable sensory witness to a miracle, you can dance around it however you like, but the end result is that, there is no such thing as knowledge (justified true belief) in a miracle. Possible, Impossible, whatever in the metaphysical realm as it may be.

Using what you’ve just said above, there is only one question that must be asked, and you’ve already answered it. Q: Is it ever justified to believe in a miracle? A: No. Q: Why not? A: Because humans cannot be trusted as empirical sources of knowledge in areas where their data gathering might be corrupted, or where their knowledge is limited.

Using that series of questions, there is no such thing as a real miracle in the existential realm, however else you want to discuss a miracle in the metaphysical. If it isn’t within anyone’s epistemic rights to believe in a miracle, ever, then you’re left with a non-knowable, unverifiable experience with no credibility. By Hume’s own standards, that renders them impossible in the existential.

Hume’s own words: “Upon the whole, then, it appears, that no testimony for any kind of miracle has ever amounted to a probability, much less to a proof; and that, even supposing it amounted to a proof, it would be opposed by another proof; derived from the very nature of the fact, which it would only endeavor to establish. It is experience only, which gives authority to human testimony; and it…

…is the same experience, which assures us of the laws of nature. When, therefore, these two kinds of experience are contrary, we have nothing to do but subtract the one from the other, and embrace an opinion, either on one side or the other, with the assurance that arises from the remainder. But according to the principle here explained, this subtraction…amounts to a total annihilation…

and therefore we may establish it as a maxim, that no human testimony can have such force as to prove a miracle…” from An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. If no human is ever justified in believing a miracle, and belief in one amounts to “an annihilation,” I find it very unlikely that Hume believed that they were existentially possible, unless he believed nature could deny itself.

“and there is no such thing as a reliable sensory witness to a miracle..” Stealth, I don’t believe that that is what Hume is saying. Hume is saying that second hand testimony is never enough, by itself, to “prove” that a miracle occurred to anyone else. He’s not saying that nobody could possibly witness a miracle, only that testimony of it is not sufficient.

I wonder what would happen if one of you experienced a “miracle”…what would you say? Or would you consider it something else…Cuz you have to admit, extraordinary and unexplainable things could very well possibly happen to anyone…and do

I think an analogy that I’ve used before holds just as well in this case. No person was justified in believing that neutrinos existed before 1900. I think that Hume would agree with that statement (if he were alive today and had similar sentiments regarding criteria of reliability of testimony). And that neutrinos exist.

So we have a case where both things are satisfied: No justified belief in something given one kind of evidence (testimony). Yet a belief that that thing exists (or could exist).

I understand your analogy. It’s a good one. But isn’t that existentially the same as saying that there were no neutrinos before 1900? Here is my deal. What kind of evidence would it take to validate something believed to be a miracle after the fact? Is existential experience ever enough to justify belief in a miracle? If it’s not, that’s making a claim about the nature of a miracle.

“…second hand testimony is never enough, by itself, to “prove” that a miracle occurred to anyone else. He’s not saying that nobody could possibly witness a miracle, only that testimony of it is not sufficient.” I agree. This is what Hume is saying. I’m talking implications now. If knowledge is justified true belief, and it is never justified beyond a single person, who is therefore also…

…not justifiable in their belief, (if no one will accept your testimony as trustworthy it is scientifically irredeemable) what you are left with, given Hume’s presuppositions, is something which MIGHT have happened, but can never be known, even if there were multiple witnesses to the same event, because even with the multiple attestation, none of them are to be trusted.

As a thought experiment to test this existentially, let’s put a critically ill patient from an ontology ward as our focus. The person has been examined by numerous specialists, and all the friends and family have witnessed the deterioration of the stricken one’s condition. In a miracle, the person suddenly loses all their symptoms and the disease, without any explanation.

According to Hume, NONE of the people who witnessed this, including the many trained doctors, are justified in believing that a miracle has occurred. Not a single one. To me, it seems like if you have multiple attestation of the same event, and there is no explanation which covers the available facts, you’re talking about a miracle. And they happen, almost every day. It’s not deus ex machina…

…it’s simply a matter of the defiance of explanation, precisely because none is available. I believe in many of these cases, not only is no explanation available now, but there will not be one, ever. They are anomalies, they are extraordinary. They are not simply matters which cannot be explained yet. They are unexplainable by nature. I know dogmatic naturalists have a problem with this.

Using “a thinking bum”‘s analogy differently: what if a week later it was scientifically discovered that the illness suffering by the said patient is curable with…..the resulting chemical formed by paracetamol and iodine, which happened to be accidentally ingested by the said patient 3 days before he started recovering. “his deep commitment that no matter of fact is impossible.”

One interpretation, multiple applications. In this case Humen is saying that miracles can exist(though it cannot be justified). Justification for the belief that miracles cannot be justified also lies on that premise, “that no matter of fact is impossible”. As I pointed out, what if a week later it was discovered that there WAS a scientific explanation for that bizzarre occurence?

I don’t think Hume’s arguments concludes to annihilation of the existential world, but rather, annihilation of certainty in any, random belief. I’m guessing the purpose of his applying this theory to miracles, particularly when it is part of the foundation for a religion, is due to the eminence of christianity, and it’s rather totalitarian nature during his lifetime.

Bum, if we cannot trust ourselves then there is nothing left to trust. Are you seeking the Truth? Or are you fighting against the possibility of Truth?

This is just plain odd . . . maybe if I read more often I’d be able to know who these people are . . . wow .. . strange

Are you seeking the Truth? Or are you fighting against the possibility of Truth? [Stellar Evolution] Always Truth.

I’d be very interested to hear you expound on your belief in the nature of truth, Bum. Is it objective? Is it rational? Is it empirically verfiable? What constitutes truth?

“Is it objective?” Yes. “Is it rational?” No. Is truth blue? No. “Is it empirically verfiable?” Hopefully. “What constitutes truth?” Not sure what you’re asking.

You have a very interesting diary here. I look forward to reading more of your entries in the future. I assume that since you attend Vanderbilt, you live in my city. Rock on…

^^^ I’m a bit confused about the nature of truth, true truth. What do you mean by truth being objective?

“What do you mean by truth being objective?” I mean that the truth is the truth regardless of what anyone thinks (or doesn’t think) about it.

“Is existential experience ever enough to justify belief in a miracle? If it’s not, that’s making a claim about the nature of a miracle.” It’s not a claim about the nature of miracles. It’s a claim about the nature of evidence.

“According to Hume, NONE of the people who witnessed this, including the many trained doctors, are justified in believing that a miracle has occurred.” No – According to Hume, nobody hearing their testimony is justified to believe it without additional evidence. I don’t believe that Hume ever comments on whether or not the eyewitness himself is justified in believing it.

Hume’s main point is that the lesser ‘miracle’ should be believed as true. If it is a greater miracle that all of these people could have actually witnessed what they claim to have witnessed and be wrong than right, then Hume argues that one would only then be justified in believing them.

The problem, however, is that a miracle as defined is in direct contradiction to our everyday experience of the natural world. It’s far more likely that 1 or several people are mistaken or ignorant of the true natural causes (or deluded, or lying) than it is that nature’s regularity was truly violated. If we saw the regularity in nature routinely violated then nature would be chaotic, not regular.

I’m probably being annoying, but how can the truth be objective? How can we tell what is true?

Of course ghosts are real . . . geesh . . . out of curiousity . .. do yoiu believe in anything? Do you believe I”m real? **concerned** — Bon

I agree with what An Atheist says about Hume’s argument, by the way.

Hello Bum. I suppose I could say hi just as well over at Bloop since I think you are still there, but I you’re in my favourites here and I stopped by to write an entry, so I thought I would say hi to some old faves. Lauren

So how do you explain, or rather, what would you call those that have been dead for several minutes or days (John 11 – The Death of Lazarus) and then come to life?

“So how do you explain, or rather, what would you call those that have been dead for several minutes or days (John 11 – The Death of Lazarus) and then come to life? [Ambassador4Christ]” Probably a miracle – if that happened – but why should anyone believe that it did?

RYN: Hey, I don’t mind at all if you leave notes on my diary, but NotLiberal might not see it, and I think it was intended for him. =)

About Ambassador’s note above: That’s just exactly the entire point I’ve been trying to make (unsuccessfully though it seems I’ve been), Bum. Don’t deceive yourself, you’re working at cross purposes with what you’ve said in your response, and it’s a word game that is quite unconvincing, at least to me. Paraphrased, your post might read, “Maybe a miracle–but no one should believe it.”

Of course, that is Hume’s position. No first person testimony is valid as an attestation for another person. By that logic, NO human history has been valid, ever, except for the people who lived it. That is not existentially different from claiming there is no history that is verifiable until there was media around to capture it directly (video, etc.). I can’t buy that. *shrugs*

“No first person testimony is valid as an attestation for another person. By that logic, NO human history has been valid, ever, except for the people who lived it.” That is a valid argument, but irrelevant. Would Hume believe a person that told him, “I had breakfast this morning.”? Yes. According to what you just wrote, Hume would apparently say, No.

I think if you can’t even have reason to believe someone when they tell you they had breakfast as a logical outcropping of a philosophy, that the skepticism has gone a bit far. I know that’s a far out example, but if Hume used the same standards for “morning meal rumors” he used for miracles, no one would be justified in believing anyone else had ever eaten breakfast, unless they’d seen it.

I appreciate the attempt to quantify miracles, I honestly and sincerely do. I think that many of the supposed miracles we see aren’t really that at all. But I also don’t want to be so into explaining them away that I make it impossible to ever be justified in believing the testimony that one has taken place. It seems like a way to avoid dealing with the claims to me.

I’m for taking all miracle claims, and submitting them to a number of defeaters–if they pass, we call them a miracle. If they don’t pass the defeaters, then we call it something else, be it a hoax or a hallucination or whatever. But I want to seriously look at all the evidence before I cut off the person telling me about it by saying I’m not justified in believing their testimony.

“I think if you can’t even have reason to believe someone when they tell you they had breakfast as a logical outcropping of a philosophy, that the skepticism has gone a bit far.” I completely agree.

“I know that’s a far out example, but if Hume used the same standards for “morning meal rumors” he used for miracles, no one would be justified in believing anyone else had ever eaten breakfast, unless they’d seen it.” I completely disagree.

ryn: Congrats to you also on your acceptance to UT Austin! I actually also got accepted by the University of Texas for the Ph.D program too! 🙂 Best of luck!

Well…I was way off. Admittedly I did not actually read Hume’s work, I just assumed based on what’s been wrote here…sorry! I see what you(and presumably hume) are trying to say now. His arguments just seem really obvious….you’d think people would have concluded such already(before a philosopher would see it necessary to point that out). Also started the bible…

guess you were referring to miracles in that sense.

What if you never find your Truth because you do not ‘believe’, or you just find it unacceptable? Where does that leave you? I mean, is finding the Truth truely important to you? What if we (Christians) are right (I obviously believe we are) and that God is the Truth? Would you be willing to accept that – given your criteria for proof – ?

“No first person testimony is valid as an attestation for another person. By that logic, NO human history has been valid, ever, except for the people who lived it.” This might be a little old now…but…to state this is to completely miss the main point of Hume’s argument…

…Hume is not throwing *all* eyewitness testimony out of the window. He’s only arguing against testimony for which disbelief is the lesser miracle. Whether or not somebody had breakfast in the morning is a highly believable claim. Whether or not somebody rose from the dead and came inside to join you for breakfast isn’t.