Who was David Hume?
An atheist philosopher and empiricist.
Why is Hume considered an empiricist?
He believed all questions of truth must be based on experience.
Why did Hume argue we cannot have knowledge of God?
Because we have no sensory experience of God.
In which book did Hume outline his criticism of miracles?
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.
What principle did Hume believe should guide belief?
Belief should be proportioned to evidence.
Did Hume reject the possibility of miracles as acts of God?
No, he rejected believing reports of miracles, not the possibility itself.
What did Hume challenge regarding miracles?
The use of miracles to demonstrate the truth of religions.
When can we be almost certain a conclusion is correct, according to Hume?
When all evidence points to one particular conclusion.
What is Hume’s definition of a miracle?
“A breach of the laws of nature brought about by the deity or some other invisible agent.”
What is Hume’s principle about testimony and miracles?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless its falsehood would be more miraculous than the event it tries to prove.
What is testimony according to Hume?
A claim a person makes, believing it to be true.
Which possibility does Hume say is always more rational?
That the events described did not occur.
What two possibilities does a miracle report present?
That a supernatural miracle occurred, or that the events described did not occur.
Why does Hume think miracle reports are unlikely to be true?
It is more likely that reports were exaggerated or mistaken than that a natural law was breached.
Why does Hume think rejecting the miracle is more rational?
Because we have constant experience that natural laws hold.
What assumption did Hume make about natural laws?
That they are fixed and exceptionless, grounded in constant experience.
How does modern physics differ from Hume’s view of natural laws?
It treats natural laws as probabilistic models and approximations.
How might Hume defend his argument despite modern physics?
He could argue that breaches of natural laws are so unlikely that it is still more rational to think a miracle did not occur.
What did Hume question about witnesses to miracles?
Whether there had ever been a sufficient number of intelligent or reliable witnesses.
What did Hume suggest about people who claim to see miracles?
They are often people who are prone to look for miracles.
Why does Hume think no miracle has ever had adequate testimony?
No miracle has been witnessed by someone whose testimony outweighs the uniform experience of natural law.
What problem exists in Hume’s criteria for witnesses?
He never defines what counts as a sufficient number of witnesses or what “good learning” means.
What does Hume conclude about religion?
That religion is based in faith, not reason.
What logical issue follows from Hume not defining sufficient witnesses?
There must logically be a point at which a predetermined number of reliable witnesses would be sufficient.
