What is the retort to Hume’s first critique?
- Hume refuses to allow any exceptions to the laws of nature. He begs the question by defining miracles into non-existence.
- Its only when we analyse anomalies that we make new discoveries.
What is Hume’s first critique?
If natural laws never break, then there can’t be any miracles.
What is Hume’s second critique?
The testimony for the miracle is not sufficient unless the absence of the miracle would be more miraculous.
What is the retort to Hume’s second critique?
Hume only considered verbal or written testimony, he never considered other evidence, such as images and x-rays.
What is Hume’s third critique?
Witnesses must be intelligent, trustworthy and rational. The miracle must happen in a public place and there must be a sufficient number of witnesses.
What is the retort to Hume’s third critique?
- He does not specify what a sufficient number is.
- Many religious believers are educated and insightful.
- His criteria for witnesses is too strict, it’s impossible to please him.
- He’s a hypocrite: He rejected a miracle in France, despite the fact that the witnesses fit the criteria.
What is Hume’s fourth critique?
People who believe in miracles look out for them. Even religious believers who know that miracles are fake promote them as it will make God known for the best.
What is the retort to Hume’s fourth critique?
- Religious believers are capable of distinguishing true from false.
- Hume believes that all religious people are either “deceivers or deceived” - he is not open to the idea that some religious believers are genuine about their belief and sometimes doubt miracles.
What is Hume’s fifth critique?
All miracles occur among ignorant and barbarous nations.
What is the retort to Hume’s fifth critique?
Miracles occur globally and amongst all peoples.
What is Hume’s final critique?
Not all religions can be correct, therefore they cancel each other out.
The probability of a miracle taking place is so low…
As to render it impossible.
