An Objection to Hume’s Argument Against Believing in Miracles
  • SwampMan
    9
    Belief in supernatural miracles is a prerequisite to believing in a number of religious faith traditions. David Hume has presented an argument against the rationality of believing in miracles. His argument goes like this:

    1. A miracle is “a violation of a law of nature” and “contrary to experience.”
    2. If so, then the prior probability* of a miracle is very low.
    3. Therefore, the prior probability of a miracle is very low. (1,2 modus ponens)
    4. If the prior probability of a miracle is very low, then we should only believe in the miracle if the evidence for it is extremely strong.
    5. So, we should only believe in a miracle if the evidence for it is extremely strong. (3,4 modus ponens)
    6. The evidence for a miracle is never extremely strong.
    7. So, we should never believe in any miracle. (5,6 modus tollens)

    *prior probability is the probability of some event before evidence is taken into account.

    I think there is more than one premise in this argument in which we can find fault, but for now, I will focus on premise 4. There may be an intuitive appeal to the idea that events that happen very rarely require extraordinary evidence, but I think we can jettison this intuition with some simple counterexamples.

    On January 8th, 2022 the Dallas Cowboys defeated the Philadelphia Eagles with a score of 51-26. This is a fact that I am reporting to you. I can also tell you that that is the only game in the history of the NFL to end in that exact score. Considering that the NFL has existed for almost 100 years now, this means that the prior probability of any game ending in a score of 51-26 is exceptionally low. However, it seems like it is reasonable for you to believe that it happened merely because I told you it did. I am some faceless person on the internet who you have no reason to trust. My word should count as very little evidence. Despite this, it is still reasonable for you to believe what I have said about the Cowboys and Eagles game. After all, why would I lie about that? This example shows that some events, even with a very low prior probability, can be reasonably believed in based on little evidence, let alone extremely strong evidence. For this reason, I find fault in premise 4 of Hume’s argument as I have outlined it.
    SwampMan Options
  • chiknsld
    285
    4. If the prior probability of a miracle is very low, then we should only believe in the miracle if the evidence for it is extremely strong. — SwampMan

    He's saying you should only believe in extraordinary claims if you have strong evidence.

    This example shows that some events, even with a very low prior probability, can be reasonably believed in based on little evidence, let alone extremely strong evidence. For this reason, I find fault in premise 4 of Hume’s argument as I have outlined it. — SwampMan

    Well you can believe in anything you want regardless of if there is evidence or not. Someone talking about the score of a football game, sure why would they lie? Usually people lie about more important things than a football game, so you would have many unsuspecting people believe you that the score is accurate, or the date, etc.

    Really doesn't have anything to do with Hume saying that you should have strong evidence for extraordinary claims. His opinion is about something different than your opinion.
    chiknsld Options
  • universeness
    6.3k
    On January 8th, 2022 the Dallas Cowboys defeated the Philadelphia Eagles with a score of 51-26. This is a fact that I am reporting to you. — SwampMan

    The point is that your claim is easily checked and verified, we don't have to just accept your word.
    Moses parting the red sea is not verifiable, until we have time machines!
    In this case, of Hume's premise 4 versus SwampMan, Hume defeated SwampMan.
    universeness Options
  • Banno
    23.4k
    Considering that the NFL has existed for almost 100 years now, this means that the prior probability of any game ending in a score of 51-26 is exceptionally low. — SwampMan

    Is it? It seems there have been over 15 000 games played. Given that games rarely score more than a hundred points in total, the number of possible scores is something like 100 x 100, or 10 000.

    Hence the prior probability of any particular score having occurred at some time in the history of the game approaches certainty.
    Banno Options
  • Ciceronianus
    3k
    On January 8th, 2022 the Dallas Cowboys defeated the Philadelphia Eagles with a score of 51-26. — SwampMan

    Well, Hume was talking about miracles, you see (violations of the laws of nature). Your talking about the score of a football game. Perhaps this defeat of the Eagles by the Cowboys doesn't amount to a violation of the laws of nature.
    Ciceronianus Options
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Moses parting the red sea is not verifiable, until we have time machines! — universeness

    :up: :clap:
    Agent Smith Options
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    The issue with Hume and his take on miracles is that he discovered the problem of induction which basically is an open invitation to miracle workers like Moses and Jesus. The laws of nature? Bah! No such thing! The sun may not rise tomorrow for all we know. Bertrand Russell drove the point home with a short, short story about a chicken whose neck was wrung one fateful day, not what the chicken was expecting from his past experiences.

    Hume seems to be saying there are laws of nature that are unlikely to be violated in his argument against miracles and then also talks about how induction could fail at any moment. You just killed yourself, Hume!
    Agent Smith Options
  • Jackson
    1.8k
    ↪SwampMan


    I think Hume's argument is more like UFO sightings. It is more probable that it is something that the viewer cannot identify than a spaceship from somewhere else in the universe.
    Jackson Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment