Argument For The Uniformity Of Nature And Not Believe In Miracles

In this paper, I will explain why David Hume believes a wise person should believe in the uniformity of nature and not believe in miracles, despite the similarities in their foundations. First, I will lay out and restate Hume’s argument for the belief or disbelief for both the uniformity of nature and of miracles. Next, I will assess the similarities between the two arguments he addresses, and subsequently comment on the differences between the two beliefs, clarifying and expanding on Hume’s assessment that we should believe the future will resemble the past, but not believe in miracles. Hume’s Argument for the Uniformity of Nature Hume begins section seven of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding by expanding on his definitions he introduced
Section ten focuses on his perspective of their existence, miracles namely being defined as events contrary to the laws of nature. Hume provides rationale to support the notion that miracles are unbelieveable. Primarily, miracles are believed solely from accepting human testimony as true. Our belief in miracles, Hume contends, is based “wholly from our observation of the truthfulness of human testimony and of how facts usually conform to the reports witnesses give of them” (578). However, because miracles are often very astonishing and improbable, it is hard to believe the testimonies that declare them in the same way we believe a testimony declaring how to reach the nearest train station; as Hume puts it, “the value of this testimony (one attempting to establish the truth of something astonishing) as evidence will be greater or less in proportion as the fact that is attested to is less or more unusual” (579). And, in the case of miracles based solely on human testimony, it is much more probable that the testimony itself is false then the miracle actually occurred. As Hume continues, no testimony is great enough to establish the existence of a miracle “unless it is of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact that it tries to establish” (579). This highlight shows how the belief in miracles is irrational; coming solely from someone else’s testimony, it is easier to
In the case of the uniformity of nature, it is a connection we have experienced, and thus one that can be believed although it has an irrational foundation. Hume uses the idea of habit or custom to further explain this irrational belief; our assumptions and beliefs about the future are based in probability and experience. If, from past experience, we have experienced a connection between two events (Hume uses the example of heat and flame), we learn to assume a cause and effect relationship between the two. If experience teaches us that two events occur together repeatedly, we will assume a link between them. Furthermore, if this causal assumption did not exist, we could not function. Causation is needed in order to survive (how to satiate hunger and thirst, how to get warm, etc.). All fundamental necessities are built upon a causal assumption. Miracles, contradictingly, are not needed in any way unless to fulfill a love of wonder, as previously