David Hume: On Miracles (Explained and Critiqued)

David Hume's argument against miracles is one of his most famous. The claim is that anyone who believes a miracle has occurred is being irrational. This argument has provoked debate amongst philosopher's regarding both how it should be interpreted, and whether he is right.

This video explores this famous argument at the level of a first year undergraduate course in philosophy. It should be helpful for both those that find philosophy interesting and philosophy students alike. I try to explain the issues involved, and then suggest what we can learn from thinking about these issues.

00:00 - Introduction
01:05 - Hume's argument against miracles - Knowledge, evidence and laws of nature
04:10 - Hume's argument against miracles - Evidence from testimony
06:27 - Hume's argument against miracles - Weighing against miracles
10:58 - Peter Millican's base rate fallacy interpretation
15:35 - R.F. Holland's redefinition of a miracle
18:20 - Richard Swinburne's defence - believe both!
21:05 - What I think
24:43 - Ending

Hume’s Syndrome: Irrational Resistance to the Paranormal

Michael Grosso

Abstract

One of the obstacles to progress in psychical research is irrational resistance to the phenomena. Among eighteenth-century Enlightenment writers, one type of resistance was evident that has persisted until present times. To illustrate, the present paper looks at David Hume’s discussion of miracles in his An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748/1955). Hume’s essay actually lays out a good case for some extraordinary events reported about the death of the Jansenist Francois de Paris—phenomena produced by the so-called ‘‘convulsionaries of St. Medard.’’ The contradiction is resolved by Hume himself, who naively reveals what motivates him to deny the overwhelming testimony he reviews: namely, his fear of validating religion. This paper notes the same pressure to deny ‘‘miracles’’ in another eighteenth-century writer, Edward Gibbon; Gibbon, however, unlike Hume, yields to the pressure of evidence and admits one startling instance of a well-documented preternatural event. A third figure from the same century is cited, a rationalistic Promotor Fidei of the Catholic Church, Prosper Lambertini, who, ironically, may be cited as having advanced the cause of the scientific investigation of psychic phenomena. The lesson from history is not to be seduced by stereotypes: an empiricist can deny and distort facts; a religious believer can be critical and objective.