Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Humes Miracles
In section 10, Hume starts to discuss miracles and their improbability. The biggest issue I have found comes with his definition of miracles, basically that they go against the laws of nature. So what he is saying is that even though we have no reason to believe that the 'laws of nature' will hold true to anything, and might entirely reverse course on us at any given moment...because the past is no indication of the future effects...that we should believe them anyway and use them to debunk potential 'miracles'? Seems like he just doesn't want to believe them but doesn't have a very good reason so he pins it on something that he claims is not necessarily true...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I like the point you made here, but I feel like Hume thinks that the laws of nature are a lot more plausible than miracles are.
i agree, but i don't think that the second part of what you said sandy is right. I think that he says that natural laws are flawed because of the process of induction.
Post a Comment