Assess Humes reasons for rejecting miracles

This essay hasn't yet been marked by one of our teachers

You can view 13 essays on Philosophy that have been Marked by Teachers

The first 200 words of this essay...

Assess Hume's reasons for rejecting miracles

Hume defined miracles as a "violation of the laws of nature" and consequently rejected their occurrence as both improbable and impractical. This view has been supported by modern scientists and philosophers such as Atkins, Dawkins and Wiles to a certain extent. However Aquinas, Tillich and Holland and Swinburne to a certain extent reject Hume's reasons, instead arguing that miracles have a divine cause and that Hume's arguments are weak. This essay will argue that Hume's reasons for rejecting miracles are not valid and in doing so consider his two main arguments; lack of probability and Hume's practical argument.

Hume's first reason for rejecting miracles was a lack of probability. He argued that evidence from people's experience of observing the world showed the laws of nature to be fixed and unvarying. However to suggest a miracle occurred was to say that the laws of nature had been violated, hence his definition of miracles being a "violation of the laws of nature." Miracles were reported has having occurred by eyewitnesses, as is stated in the Bible in the case of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. However for Hume it was far