David Hume
Has lots of accomplishments (To learn a bit more- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume). Our main focus is going to be on his case against miracles.There are two interpretations of Hume's argument- a wrong one and a right one.
1. Metaphysical Argument (Wrong Interpretation of Hume's stuff) Says:
a. A miracle is a violation of the Laws of Nature. (Pretty much says that Hume was trying to prove the Impossibility of Miracles). This interpretation also functions as the supposed definition of a miracle (again, it's flawed).
b. Nothing can violate a Law of Nature, therefore Christians are loony to believe in miracles.
But, that wasn't what Hume was claiming when he created his case.
The metaphysical interpretations would bring up an extremely embarrassing flaw in Hume's thinking. He was too smart of a guy to make that kind that kind of a mistake.
You see, Hume's greatest "discovery" or work, was his analysis of the Laws of Science.
He claims that there are two parts to every Scientific Law:
a. What it says about the past (Based on experience and observation).
b. What it says about the future (Basic assumption that the future will always be like the past).
But, Where comes the confidence that the future will always be exactly like the past?
Humes answer? We can't have perfect certainty. We have a presupposition, or an act of faith, that allows us to believe that things will stay consistent.
Everyday of each of our lives, and of the lives of millions of people before us, the sun has risen in the east. Technically we can't know that it will happen that way tomorrow. Something in us knows, believes, that it will- but we really can't be 100% certain.
This is the thing, the argument, that made Hume famous. It is in direct contradiction with the metaphysical argument, and therefore- that interpretation is not correct.
So, what is this contradiction?
If we have no real assurance that the Laws of Science will hold up, and miracles are things that seem (Keyword here) to go against those laws, then you can't claim that miracles are impossible. Hume understood that. His point wasn't to disprove their possibility- it was to undermine their probability.
2. Epistemological Argument
What Hume was really getting at:(Verbatim Nash's words) "No one can prove miracles are impossible, BUT, even if a miracle did occur- no human could ever know it was a miracle because the probability of a miracle happening is too small. Humans, by nature, will always try to rationalize miracles."
Take for Example This story: (Nash's story)
Say that you and a friend live in the age of Abe Lincoln. Both of you happen to be in Ford's theatre when the president is tragically shot from behind. Let's say you go across the street with Mr. Lincoln, and watch as he slowly passes into the abyss. Staying for a few minutes, you witness his skin grow cold, and can attest to the fact that poor Abe really is dead.
Now, lets say that the next day you wake up, and go into work to find your buddy having a heart attack. He's really freaking out. Once you go over, he proceeds to say, "I saw Lincoln alive this morning. I talked with him, and felt the warmth of his skin. He must have come back from the dead!" Well, the first thing you do is check to see if he's been drinking, or smoking something he shouldn't have been (Keep in mind, this friend is normally stable, and reliably honest). He genuinely seems to be telling the truth.
Applying Hume's theory- you have two options. First choice- you choose not to believe what your friend has said- and rationalize the situation. You say to yourself, "It was probably something else". Option two- you take what he says as truth. In all honesty, if someone had said those words to you, what's your response? It's not a rhetorical question... and it' not difficult. You'd probably pick option 1. You saw Abe dead for crying out loud.
So, is it probable that Abe is actually alive? No. Why? Because in your personal experience, no one has ever come back from the dead. Things that have died have stayed dead. It feels unreasonable to you, given your personal observation, to pick option 2.
However...
Nash points out here that our experiences aren't always good enough. We want to pick option 1 because we feel like this sort of exemption has never happened before. This isn't the case though. If we take a look at history- there have been a great many instances of people "coming back from the dead".
So, this changes the definition of a miracle. Now it's not something that contradicts a law of science- it's merely something that seems to be a contradiction- given our own personal experience and observation.
Hume is saying that even if we wanted to believe, our human minds would rationalize the miracle away.
(Link for furthur reading: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/victor_reppert/miracles.html)
Response to Hume:
http://www.classicapologetics.com/special/humefumes.html (This is like all of them... ever. Nash just picks a big one to talk about. If you get bored, and need something to read- this link is for you).
Hume insinuates that the only way to come to believe in a miracle is through hearing testimony. He doesn't account for first hand experience.
Another Story: (I do apologize for inserting all these stories, but I feel like they add a bit of color to all this argument stuff. It' nice to have a bit of humor once in awhile.)
Nash's words, Verbatim:
" There was a night when I was driving home from a church service (I was in College at the time, living in a little town in NY). It was foggy- to the point of very limited visibility. The road was next to a river- and it had just rained, so the ground was extremely muddy and soft. I took a corner or something wrong, and slipped off the side of the road into the mud. Because the ground was so soft, I couldn't get back onto pavement. Being the stupid 19 year old I was, I kept gunning the motor. Little did I know, I was headed straight for a cliff, and the swirling depths of this river. All of a sudden, the wheel was jerked, not sort of pushed or slightly moved- but jerked left, and I found myself miraculously on the road again. I fancy to myself that I heard a voice say, 'Dummy, let me drive for a while'. Whether that's really what I heard or not.. Well, I'll let you decide. Point being- I was there- and I felt it. You can be a skeptic all you like- but nothing changes my personal conviction that God was intervening that night."
C.D. Broad- "Clearly many propositions have been counted Laws of Nature because of an invariable experience in their favor. Then, exceptions have been observed time and time again, and that Law ceases to be considered a law."
We used to think we knew a lot of things- and then we discovered that we were mistaken.
But heres the thing- the first time one of those exceptions occurs- it looks like a contradiction. That person looks crazy.
David Humes argument says to reject those exceptions. Hence- if the first report ought to make no difference in the Law, then the second or third...etc, won't either. Hume says that if A doesn't follow B to a specific person (personal experience), they should rationalize it away. This line of thinking would mean that no amount of proof for B following A will ever prove it.
If scientists had actually proceed with Humes thinking- some of the most important Natural Laws would have never been discovered.
His theorizing actually harms scientific progress. Ironic.
One of Humes rebuttals:
Competing religions also use miracles to support their beliefs. Christians, Muslims, Hindu, etc. So, how do we show that Christian miracles are any better than the others?Answer:
Richard Pertil (Catholic Philosopher)Genuine incompatibility in miracle would harm us. For example- If a religion were to claim that one of their prophets had come back from the dead and was actually God in human form- we'd have an issue. However, its hard to show that any contradictory miracle such as that has ever been claimed (at least with any shred of credibility).
Other people see miracles, but attribute them to the wrong thing. They actually belong to our God, and fit under our miracles. They don't actually contradict us.
Alleged miracles of non-Christian religions actually help our case. They are an opportunity to put the focus on our All-Powerful, Loving God. We can point out the consistency with our stuff, versus how that miracle fits in with their religion.
Wow. Lots of stuff. Great though- and extremely interesting. Thanks for reading. :) A bit more on miracles to come. Then we'll move onto arguments for Jesus being the only Savior. I'm pretty excited. Stay tuned!
No comments:
Post a Comment