Assess Hume’s Reasons for Rejecting Miracles

Assess Humes reasons for rejecting miracles Hume defined miracles as a trespass of the rectitudes of character and consequently rejected their occurrence as both incredible and impractical. This view has been support by modern scientists and philosophers such(prenominal)(prenominal) as Atkins, Dawkins and Wiles to a certain extent. However Aquinas, Tillich and Holland and Swinburne to a certain extent reject Humes reasons, instead arguing that miracles work a divine cause and that Humes crinkles are weak.This essay will argue that Humes reasons for rejecting miracles are non valid and in doing so consider his two main cables omit of probability and Humes practical argument. Humes first reason for rejecting miracles was a lack of probability. He argued that evidence from messs experience of observing the world showed the laws of record to be fixed and unvarying. However to invoke a miracle occurred was to say that the laws of constitution had been violated, hence his ex position of miracles universe a invasion of the laws of character. Miracles were account has having occurred by eyewitnesses, as is stated in the Bible in the case of Jesus raising Lazarus from the departed. However for Hume it was far more presumable that the eyewitnesses were errorn in what they witnessed, than for Jesus to have actually raised Lazarus from the dead and in doing so violated fixed laws of spirit. A violation of the laws of nature was therefore an improbable occurrence. Wiles agrees with Humes point that it is more likely the eyewitness was wrong than a miracle occurred, in doing so raising the problem of evil.It was dislocated to suggest theology was omnipotent and good if he showed snuff it favouritism through creating miracles whilst at the same time many passel were suffering. It would be more likely that a witness made a mistake or did not run into what they saw than an ominbenevolant and omnipotent divinity fudge showed clear signs of bias and fa vouritism through miracles therefore Humes first argument is valid. Swinburne supports Humes view that laws of nature are defined by the experiences of people observing the world, as he believes that peoples observations are the seat for all natural laws.Additionally Humes argument that miracles are improbable is supported by Dawkins view that it would be super unlikely that mortal could just learn to walk again after being paralysed as a burden of a miracle, as this would constitute a violation of the laws of nature. This also supports the root word that Humes argument is valid. However he rejects Humes concept of the laws of nature being fixed and unvarying, as he believed them to be corrigible due the possibility new discoveries and observations about the world could result in them being altered in some way.Additionally Swinburne disagrees with Humes idea of what an improbable event is. Whilst for Hume this means an event which it would be foolish to suggest occurs at all, such as the sun staying the sky, Swinburne argues that miracles are more probalistic such as picking out a red grain of sand, extremely unlikely but not totally impossible therefore the boldness of Humes first argument can be questioned.Additionally Swinburne criticises Humes definition of miracles as a violation of the laws of nature as he believes that whilst a miracle such as that of Jesus resurrection clearly does not fit in with the laws of nature, on its own it is not enough to prove the laws of nature have been violated, a view supported by Aquinas who suggests miracles have a divine origin. The contingency argument, supported by Holland and Tillich also criticises Humes definition of miracles as a violation of the laws of nature. It uses evidence from the Bible, such as Jesus feeding the five thousand, to highlight that Gods cipher with miracles is not to fit in with the framework of modern concepts but to for God to reveal Himself to the people. Tillich himself argues th at miracles do not have to involve the violation of nature as they can be possible events, such as a train stopping just in front of a tike on a crossing, which hold religious significance for some people. indeed a miracle does not have to be an improbable event, suggesting that Humes argument is not significant.Humes molybdenum reason for rejecting miracles is presented in his practical argument. He considered levels of education to be a significant factor as miracles were plainly traceed to have occurred by those who were not educated enough to understand the scientific commentary of an event. The stories these people reported were usually circulated and exaggerated, altering them importantly as is the case with urban myths, such as that after Hurricane Katrina stating that law and order had broken down.Hume also considered the general level of education of the realm as a whole to be important. He highlighted how the early chronicle of countries is full of miracles and vis ions due to the unwitting and barbarous populations, such as the actually long life of Adam. However as the country becomes more true and the populations better educated such stories disappear. Therefore for Hume, Adam livelihood to 930 was simply a story made up by the noncivilized, as living so long would suggest the laws of nature to be false.Additionally Hume believes that miracles used by religions to prove their religion true would be cancelled out, as not every religion could be true. Dawkins presents a key strength of Humes second argument, by supporting his belief that miracles are only reported by the uneducated, as he believes there is a scientific explanation for the effects, such as Jeanne Fretel being cured at Lourdes.The miracles of people being cured at Lourdes, as well as those reported in the Bible simply show that miracles were used to cover up a lack of rationality of a way the world worked and to increase peoples faith in God, something which is no longer necessary as most people no longer rely on God for guidance therefore Hume presents a relevant argument rejecting miracles. Atkins supports Humes argument that the typical educated person would not be inclined to report the occurrence of a miracle as they would do better.According to Atkins it is only the publicity seeker or someone deluded or hallucinating who would claim to have witnessed such an event as they may lack the scientific level of understanding of their peers, therefore Humes argument is relevant. However this view has been criticised by Swinburne as it raises questions about how to define terms Hume raises. It is undecipherable at what stage a person becomes educated sufficiently to reject miracles. It is also unfair to need that a person believes in miracles simply because they do not k nowadays any better, as it is possible to both have a warm belief in God and a good understanding of Science.Further to this it is unclear what constitutes being ignorant and barb arous as whilst earlier nations may now seem uneducated compared to modern times, the nation may have been highly educated for the time as the standards change. Therefore the relevance of Humes second argument can be questioned. In conclusion Hume believes that miracles are violations of the laws of nature which are fixed and unvarying, and that they are only experienced by uneducated people who do not understand Science.This view rejected by Aquinas, Swinburne Holland and Tillich. Swinburne believes the laws of nature to be corrigible whilst Holland and Tillich argue that miracles are not violations of the laws of nature but sign events revealing God to the people. However Dawkins and Atkins support Humes view that miracles are only experienced by the uneducated. Overall Humes reasons for rejecting miracles are valid to only a minimal extent, as he does not consider the different definitions of a miracle, and does not define what constitutes ignorant and barbarous.