David Hume's "On Miracles"

Paper Summary:

This paper explains that David Hume argues that there can be no evidence for miracles, in spite of the many claims made for miracles throughout historical and religious literature; if there were evidence for a "miracle", then it would no longer be a miracle but rather just a new scientific fact. The author points out that miracles are mostly based on claims and testimony and not at all on hard evidence; the more outlandish the claims, the more probable it is that the testimony is false even if the witness is credible. The paper stresses that, according to Hume, belief in the miracles in the Bible is an extension of this human psychological need.

From the Paper:

"Therefore, the laws of religion cannot be classified as the laws of nature. Miracles are in most cases permitted by the laws of religion but not by the laws of nature. Hume does not deny the efficacy of religion, but he does want to distinguish the laws of religion from the laws of science. The laws of science are based on direct human experience, which is backed up by the experiences of others and found to be consistent and reliable over time. Few people know someone who has experienced a "miracle," let alone having experienced one first hand. When we do experience a "miracle" first hand, there is usually a scientific explanation for the experience."

More papers on David Hume's "On Miracles":

• Essay # 65431 : "David Hume on Miracles"
• Essay # 68161 : "David Humes: "Of Miracles"
• Essay # 86996 : "Philosophical Views on Knowledge"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: