Uploaded July 2023 | Updated September 2026, 35 minutes ago
In this video, I'll go over issues with David Hume's argument Against Miracles in "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding." By "debunking,"
I mean pointing out issues in its current fomulation. As a result, it can be reformulated in a stronger way, but it needs to take into account developments in thought since then. My issues with Hume's argument are as follows:
1. Hume's argument begs the question
2. Hume's argument is inconsistent with Hume's own skepticism
3. Hume's argument "proves too much"
4. Hume was ignorant of modern science (due to his place in history), which severly undermine his argument
5. Hume was ignorant of modern probability theory (including Bayesian statistics and Bayesian epsitemology), developed in response *to* his argument against miracles
Despite these problems, I have a great respect for Hume and do think his argument is worth considering and discussing. However, as atheist Peter Millican argues, it needs to be reformulated. A thank you to @TestifyApologetics for sugggesting Devett and Habermas's book from one of his YouTube videos (It is avaliable on Audible)
[1] Klibansky and Mossner - New Letters p234
[2] Devett and Habermas - In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God's Action in History
[3] Hume - An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
[4] Earman - Hume’s Abject Failure
[5] Millican - Earman on Hume on Mircales
[6] Lewis - On Miracles
[7] Cramer - Miracles and David Hume
[8] Flew - There Is A God
#philosophy #christianity #miracle #miracles
In this video, I'll go over issues with David Hume's argument Against Miracles in "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding." By "debunking,"
I mean pointing out issues in its current fomulation. As a result, it can be reformulated in a stronger way, but it needs to take into account developments in thought since then. My issues with Hume's argument are as follows:
1. Hume's argument begs the question
2. Hume's argument is inconsistent with Hume's own skepticism
3. Hume's argument "proves too much"
4. Hume was ignorant of modern science (due to his place in history), which severly undermine his argument
5. Hume was ignorant of modern probability theory (including Bayesian statistics and Bayesian epsitemology), developed in response *to* his argument against miracles
Despite these problems, I have a great respect for Hume and do think his argument is worth considering and discussing. However, as atheist Peter Millican argues, it needs to be reformulated. A thank you to @TestifyApologetics for sugggesting Devett and Habermas's book from one of his YouTube videos (It is avaliable on Audible)
[1] Klibansky and Mossner - New Letters p234
[2] Devett and Habermas - In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God's Action in History
[3] Hume - An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
[4] Earman - Hume’s Abject Failure
[5] Millican - Earman on Hume on Mircales
[6] Lewis - On Miracles
[7] Cramer - Miracles and David Hume
[8] Flew - There Is A God
#philosophy #christianity #miracle #miracles
