Essay about Of Miracles by David Hume

He says that miracles are further disproved by the fact that most of them are reported by ignorant, barbarous people of past generations. Some of the things that these people have reported as marvelous are common among later generations, so their mysteriousness has been lost and they are no longer miracles. If you are wondering why stories like these do not originate today, Hume says they do, but we rule them out as lies. According to him, people have always had tendencies to stretch the truth and

Hume argues that we cannot prove that there is a real world outside our experience, much less that our experience is an accurate representation of that world. He says we need to get outside our experience to see whether it does fairly represent the world, however, its near impossible to do that.

In David Hume’s essay, Why Does God Let People Suffer, he allows the reader to question if God exists in the world we live in with all the pain and suffering that goes on. Hume suggests that an all powerful God, such as the one most believe in, would not allow a world to exist with this much pain and suffering that goes on daily. Moreover, Hume basically argues that the existence of God is something that cannot be proven in the way in which scientists look for and gather proof about other scientific issues. In the following essay, I will demonstrate how David Hume feels that there is a God despite all the suffering and pain that exists in our world. “Is the World, considered in general, and as it

Arguments for religion usually develop by the elaboration of hypotheses about what might be the case, in reaction to atheistic attacks. As Hume's Philo says, there is an inventiveness in religious arguments "entirely owing to the nature of the subject"; he contrasts it with other subjects, in which "there is commonly but one determination that carries probability or conviction with it", whereas in religion "a hundred contradictory views" flourish to defend one point; and he claims that "without any great effort of thought, I believe that I could, in an instant, propose other systems of cosmogony, which would have some faint appearance of truth". Likewise, at every step in this essay, one could in an instant formulate a hundred hypotheses to defend religion against my criticism, and for each hypothesis the refutation of it can be rebuffed by another hundred hypotheses, all equally baseless.

By analyzing Descartes’ reasoning behind his proof of God, I conclude that Hume would disagree with it as he believes humans can manufacture the idea of God using external sources. In his Third Meditation, Descartes attempts to verify that God exists through an ontological argument. Descartes believes his ideas are like “images which can easily fall short of the perfection of the things from which they are taken, but which cannot contain anything greater or more perfect” (Descartes 29). He then asserts that if the “reality” of any of his ideas is

David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion provide conflicting arguments about the nature of the universe, what humans can know about it, and how their knowledge can affect their religious beliefs. The most compelling situation relates to philosophical skepticism and religion; the empiricist character, Cleanthes, strongly defends his position that skepticism is beneficial to religious belief. Under fire from an agnostic skeptic and a rationalist, the empiricist view on skepticism and religion is strongest in it’s defense. This debate is a fundamental part of the study of philosophy: readers must choose their basic understanding of the universe and it’s creator, upon which all other assumptions about the universe will be made.

Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion by David Hume is a philosophical piece concerning the existence of God. Arguments for and against the existence of God are portrayed in dialogue through three characters; Demea, Cleanthes, and Philo. All three agree that God exists, but they drastically differ in their opinions of God’s attributes or characteristics, and if man can understand God. The characters debate such topics as the design and whether there is more suffering or good in the world. It is a very common view among philosophers that Philo most represents Hume’s own views. Philo doesn’t go as far as denying the existence of God but

     Now Hume proposed that all inferences come from custom, not reasoning. Through custom or habits, we have become accustomed to expect an effect to follow a cause. This is not a rational argument. This argument centers on the theory of constant conjunction, which does not fall under either fork of reason. “All inferences from experience, therefore, are effects of custom, not reasoning.”(57)

Hume’s second reason in contradicting the validity of a miracle is that he views all of our beliefs, or what we choose to accept, or not accept through past experience and what history dictates to us. Furthermore, he tends to discredit an individual by playing on a human beings consciousness or sense of reality. An example is; using words such as, the individuals need for “excitement” and “wonder” arising from miracles. Even the individual who can not enjoy the pleasure immediately will still believe in a miracle, regardless of the possible validity of the miracle. With this, it leads the individual to feel a sense of belonging and a sense of pride. These individuals tend to be the followers within society. These individuals will tend to believe faster than the leaders in the society. With no regard to the miracles validity, whether it is true or false, or second hand information. Miracles lead to such strong temptations, that we as individuals tend to lose sense of our own belief of fantasy and reality. As individuals we tend to believe to find attention, and to gossip of the unknown. Through emotions and behavior Hume tends to believe there has been many forged miracles, regardless if the information is somewhat valid or not. His third reason in discrediting the belief in a miracle is testimony versus reality. Hume states, “It forms a strong presumption against all supernatural and miraculous

Hume’s sun argument consists of us assuming that the sun will rise because it always has. We as humans have a thought process in which we expect certain outcomes to take place purely based on what has happened through past experiences. Hume argues that just because the sun has always risen in the past, that does not justify the possibility that the sun will definitely rise again for the next morning. The sun not actually rise for the next morning is still a possibility. This argument is based on the fact that as humans we tend to believe that actions or events will take place in the future due to the same outcome occurring within past situations that were already experienced.

In other words he is saying that no matter how good or reliable a testimony may be, it can never as it were on the basis of experience be justified to accept that testimony over and against what stands as testimony against the miracle happening. The testimony happens to be the laws of nature themselves. In this sense it is clear that Hume is giving us a priori argument in Part 1 in that he is saying that miracles are contrary to reason. However I think it would be easier to accept this view if Hume had not previously discussed his Induction theory. In regard that he thought that for example that just because the sun has risen every day so far, it does not necessarily follow that the sun will rise tomorrow, we have no rational basis in believing it will. However in regard to miracles he tells us to base our decisions on past experiences, if it is unlikely it is less likely to be true. So in that sense we should also be able to say that based on our past experiences the sun will definitely rise tomorrow? Also if the sun was not to rise, surely that would be a miracle in the sense that it would be a violation of the laws of nature? And what is exactly a violation of natural laws? Dorothy Coleman points out “past experience shows that what are at one time considered violations of natural laws are frequently found

Although like Descartes, Hume practiced the art of radical skepticism, he felt that if he could not utilize his senses to prove something it was meaningless. Hume continued development of Leibniz’s analytical-synthetic distinction, or in Hume’s words “…a distinction between relations of ideas and matters of fact” (Palmer 197). Analytical propositions are true by definition and are a priori, and therefore necessarily true. Synthetic propositions are not true by

Hume's skepticism is limiting but not as limiting as Cartesian doubt. Hume calls this mitigated skepticism. "Another species of mitigated skepticism which may be of advantage to man-kind… is the limitation of our enquiries to such subjects as are best adapted to the narrow capacity of human understanding" (Section XII part. 3). We should direct our focus and studies to experiences of everyday life and to common occurrences. Extraordinary or remote ideas and thoughts should be left to the imaginations of people of the arts. By looking at the natural powers of the mind one can find what should be the objects of enquiry and study.

David Hume was a Scottish empiricist who became renowned as a philosopher for his metaphysical skepticism and his account of the mind. Born in the 18th century, Hume follows Locke, a fellow empiricist and Descartes, an idealist, in the philosophic cannon. As a result he responds to each. From Locke Hume builds upon his concept of perceptions. Hume’s defining skepticism pertains to idealistic claims of substance, god, and the self.

Hume’s Problem of Induction is finding justification for basing universal conclusions/ generalizations on particular instances. Hume believes that inductive inference is not a valid way of finding out what really happens in the world. Just because we kick a ball numerous times and see that it falls back to the ground numerous times, “does not give us any logical justification for believing” that the ball will absolutely return once it has been kicked (Magee 161). Hume argues that “these expectations are nothing more…than the fact that in the past, our expectations have not always been disappointed” (Magee 161). Just because someone is never wrong does not mean they are always right. It may seem like they