Evaluate Hume s claim that miracles are the least likely of events
Evaluate Hume’s claim that miracles are the least likely of events. (35 marks)
Hume defined miracles to be a “violation of the laws of nature” According to Hume, no matter how strong the evidence for a specific miracle may be, it will always be more rational to reject the miracle than to believe in it. The definition of Hume is both logical and objective as it esquires empirical evidence, e.g. Ockham’s razor, the simplest explanation is the correct one and therefore miracles do not occur. Hume was a septic and also thought reason through empiricism induction. However, some may say that this definition of miracles is too narrow.
Hume takes two arguments against miracles, theoretical and practical. His theoretical case against miracles is that they are theoretically possible or probable for miracles to exist. This is split in to two arguments the Argument from probability and Induction. A miracle would be based on induction which would come from cause and effect suggesting that the laws of nature are no violated. The more an event happens in a particular way the less likely it is that the opposite will happen, for example the sun will rise so it will always rise.thereofore it is more rational to believe that miracles do not happen. This is supported by Flew with the testimony from history, that there is a lack of direct and empirical evidence for the number of people to have seen a miracle. However, Swinburne suggests that just because it is not a regular occurrence it does not mean that they did not happen once in history. This therefore highlighted that Hume’s claim that miracles are least likely of events is probably true.
Hume arguments from testimony suggest that the only evidence we have of miracles occurring is from testimonies from other people. He says that the likelihood of a miracle occurring compared to that of the witnesses being mistaken. As Hume is a sceptic he argues that the most rational belief in anything must have evidence to back it up.
Hume defined miracles to be a “violation of the laws of nature” According to Hume, no matter how strong the evidence for a specific miracle may be, it will always be more rational to reject the miracle than to believe in it. The definition of Hume is both logical and objective as it esquires empirical evidence, e.g. Ockham’s razor, the simplest explanation is the correct one and therefore miracles do not occur. Hume was a septic and also thought reason through empiricism induction. However, some may say that this definition of miracles is too narrow.
Hume takes two arguments against miracles, theoretical and practical. His theoretical case against miracles is that they are theoretically possible or probable for miracles to exist. This is split in to two arguments the Argument from probability and Induction. A miracle would be based on induction which would come from cause and effect suggesting that the laws of nature are no violated. The more an event happens in a particular way the less likely it is that the opposite will happen, for example the sun will rise so it will always rise.thereofore it is more rational to believe that miracles do not happen. This is supported by Flew with the testimony from history, that there is a lack of direct and empirical evidence for the number of people to have seen a miracle. However, Swinburne suggests that just because it is not a regular occurrence it does not mean that they did not happen once in history. This therefore highlighted that Hume’s claim that miracles are least likely of events is probably true.
Hume arguments from testimony suggest that the only evidence we have of miracles occurring is from testimonies from other people. He says that the likelihood of a miracle occurring compared to that of the witnesses being mistaken. As Hume is a sceptic he argues that the most rational belief in anything must have evidence to back it up.