What is Hume’s argument against miracles?



David Hume, in Of Miracles (Section X. of An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding), claimed either that, because a miracle would be a ‘violation of the laws of nature’, miracles are impossible or that one cannot have a justified belief that a miracle occurred.

What is Hume’s view on miracles?

According to Swinburne, Hume thinks of miracles as non-repeatable counter-instances to laws of nature. generalizations (as I have assumed), and miracles as violations of laws of nature, then Hume’s view entails that miracles are logically impossible (see Everitt 347–9; McKinnon 308–14).

What is Hume’s first objection to belief in miracles?

Hume therefore lays out, in the second part of section X, a number of reasons that we have for never holding this condition to have been met. He first claims that no miracle has in fact had enough witnesses of sufficient honesty, intelligence, and education.

What is Hume’s objection?





The core of Hume’s objection here is that the existence of an intelligent designer would require explanation every bit as much as the existence of the world does; so the design argument does not offer any real explanatory gain.

What is Hume’s main conclusion?

Hume concludes that belief must be some sentiment or feeling aroused in us independently of our wills, which accompanies those ideas that constitute them. It is a particular way or manner of conceiving an idea that is generated by the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

Why does Hume not believe in God?

In this section Hume emphasizes the point that God’s being is “so different, and so much superior” to human nature that we are not able to form any clear or distinct idea of his nature and attributes, much less one based on our own qualities and characteristics.

Why did Hume reject religion?





As such, Hume rejects the truth of any revealed religion, and further shows that, when corrupted with inappropriate passions, religion has harmful consequences to both morality and society. Further, he argues, rational arguments cannot lead us to a deity.