Hume's Misconception on Miracles

[fleetmouse]

My understanding of Hume on nature in one sentence: the world is not an argument and our expectation of consistency begins with custom, habit and instinct, not axioms, so don't look for deductive certainty when dealing with matters of fact rather than relations of ideas.

Agree / disagree? I mean, agree about what Hume says, not that you would agree with what he says - you almost certainly don't because for you, the world is an argument spoken into being through the privileged vocabulary of God.

[Metacrock]

My understanding of Hume on nature in one sentence: the world is not an argument and our expectation of consistency begins with custom, habit and instinct, not axioms, so don't look for deductive certainty when dealing with matters of fact rather than relations of ideas.

Agree / disagree? I mean, agree about what Hume says, not that you would agree with what he says - you almost certainly don't because for you, the world is an argument spoken into being through the privileged vocabulary of God.

Yes. I have demonstrated the problems with Hume. The major one is the assumptions he makes are not made anymore.

[fleetmouse]

Do you understand that Hume is not saying that we can know with perfect, a priori, deductive certainty that miracles never happen - merely that we are pragmatically justified in believing that they do not happen for the same reason that we are pragmatically justified in believing that the earth will continue to spin, that gravity will continue to operate and so on?

[Metacrock]

Do you understand that Hume is not saying that we can know with perfect, a priori, deductive certainty that miracles never happen - merely that we are pragmatically justified in believing that they do not happen for the same reason that we are pragmatically justified in believing that the earth will continue to spin, that gravity will continue to operate and so on?

that is wrong. He is saying more than that. I agree with the first part, he's not saying he can prove they don't happen. He is saying they don't happen, he says that point blank (unless he adds that "enough" I can't remember).

Hume's argument is far form universally respected or admire. He was the Derrdia of his day. He was trickster he never argued a straight path or made it clear what he said. His understanding of religion was moronic, and is arguemnts against it always took worst aspects.


His argument against miracles has been criticized as circular and by people who know logic. But others defend on that charge. I think the best criticism is that it just doesn't prove. It's not a proof. It's a justification but it masquerades as a disproof. As a justification it's not even justified becuase it's begging the question.

[mdsimpson92]

Do you understand that Hume is not saying that we can know with perfect, a priori, deductive certainty that miracles never happen - merely that we are pragmatically justified in believing that they do not happen for the same reason that we are pragmatically justified in believing that the earth will continue to spin, that gravity will continue to operate and so on?

that is wrong. He is saying more than that. I agree with the first part, he's not saying he can prove they don't happen. He is saying they don't happen, he says that point blank (unless he adds that "enough" I can't remember).

Hume's argument is far form universally respected or admire. He was the Derrdia of his day. He was trickster he never argued a straight path or made it clear what he said. His understanding of religion was moronic, and is arguemnts against it always took worst aspects.


His argument against miracles has been criticized as circular and by people who know logic. But others defend on that charge. I think the best criticism is that it just doesn't prove. It's not a proof. It's a justification but it masquerades as a disproof. As a justification it's not even justified becuase it's begging the question.

Hypothetically speaking, what if he was just saying that, nothing more? Would that be any more effective? This is more out of curiousity than anything.

[fleetmouse]

David Hume is considered the greatest English speaking philosopher. When you apply words like "moronic" to him you are telling me things about yourself, not about David Hume. Specifically, you are telling me to stop paying attention to you, because your philosophical musings carry the same weight as Ted Nugent's opinion on string theory.

[Metacrock]

David Hume is considered the greatest English speaking philosopher. When you apply words like "moronic" to him you are telling me things about yourself, not about David Hume. Specifically, you are telling me to stop paying attention to you, because your philosophical musings carry the same weight as Ted Nugent's opinion on string theory.

Tish tosh! that's appeal to unnecessary authroity. It's unnecessary (1) it's just an opinion. I don't think anywhere near the greatest. I can find philosophers who don't accept that. (2) The statement applied to one aspect of his thinking and that was not about philosophy but history. He wrote a history of religion it sucked. (3) It's a well established practice to criticize Hume.

[mdsimpson92]

David Hume is considered the greatest English speaking philosopher. When you apply words like "moronic" to him you are telling me things about yourself, not about David Hume. Specifically, you are telling me to stop paying attention to you, because your philosophical musings carry the same weight as Ted Nugent's opinion on string theory.

Tish tosh! that's appeal to unnecessary authroity. It's unnecessary (1) it's just an opinion. I don't think anywhere near the greatest. I can find philosophers who don't accept that. (2) The statement applied to one aspect of his thinking and that was not about philosophy but history. He wrote a history of religion it sucked. (3) It's a well established practice to criticize Hume.

While I disagree with calling Hume "moronic" in any case, I can attest to personally knowing at least one philosopher that views Hume as being "overrated."

[Metacrock]

David Hume is considered the greatest English speaking philosopher. When you apply words like "moronic" to him you are telling me things about yourself, not about David Hume. Specifically, you are telling me to stop paying attention to you, because your philosophical musings carry the same weight as Ted Nugent's opinion on string theory.

Tish tosh! that's appeal to unnecessary authroity. It's unnecessary (1) it's just an opinion. I don't think anywhere near the greatest. I can find philosophers who don't accept that. (2) The statement applied to one aspect of his thinking and that was not about philosophy but history. He wrote a history of religion it sucked. (3) It's a well established practice to criticize Hume.

While I disagree with calling Hume "moronic" in any case, I can attest to personally knowing at least one philosopher that views Hume as being "overrated."

I didn't call him mornic. I would never say that. he waw obviously brilliant. Like Russell he's brilliant in everything but when it came to religion he wasn't.

He was like the Derrida of his day. Derrida was no dummy, he was brilliant himself. But he was also a trickster.

[mdsimpson92]

Fair enough, that is a better way of putting it. I agree that Russells understanding (I haven't read Hume, though I should given his influence on Kant) of religion was very simplistic.