David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Sophia 50 (3):345-355 (2011)
As part of his wider critique of the credibility of miraculous testimony, Hume also offers a rather curious argument as to the mutual detriment of conflicting testimony for the miracles of contrary religious worldviews. Scholarship on this aspect of Hume’s reasoning has debated whether or not the considerations are to be understood as essentially probabilistic, and as to whether or not a probabilistic interpretation of the argument is logically valid. The consensus would appear to offer a positive answer to the first question and a negative answer to the second. In this paper I expose a deeper fallacy in Hume’s reasoning that undermines both probabilistic and non-probabilistic readings. My critique is closely based upon analogous considerations in the philosophy of science, and the equally intriguing issue as to the epistemological relevance of conflicting scientific theories throughout the history of science
|Keywords||Miracles Testimony Contrary religions David Hume|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
David A. Conway (1983). Miracles, Evidence, and Contrary Religions. Sophia 22 (3):3 - 14.
Robert J. Fogelin (2003). A Defense of Hume on Miracles. Princeton Univ Pr.
David Hume (1977). Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Clarendon Press.
Bruce Langtry (1975). Hume on Miracles and Contrary Religions. Sophia 14 (1):29 - 34.
Bruce Langtry (1985). Miracles and Rival Systems of Religion. Sophia 24 (1):21 - 31.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Rodney D. Holder (1998). Hume on Miracles: Bayesian Interpretation, Multiple Testimony, and the Existence of God. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (1):49-65.
Tony Pitson (2006). George Campbell's Critique of Hume on Testimony. Journal of Scottish Philosophy 4 (1):1-15.
Michael Levine (1997). Bayesian Analyses of Hume's Argument Concerning Miracles. Philosophy and Theology 10 (1):101-106.
Jennifer Lackey (2006). The Nature of Testimony. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (2):177–197.
John Earman (2000). Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles. Oxford University Press.
Jordan Howard Sobel (1991). Hume's Theorem on Testimony Sufficient to Establish a Miracle. Philosophical Quarterly 41 (163):229-237.
Michael Root (1989). Miracles and the Uniformity of Nature. American Philosophical Quarterly 26 (4):333 - 342.
Bruce Langtry (1972). Hume on Testimony to the Miraculous. Sophia 11 (1):20-25.
Patrick Rysiew (2007). Beyond Words: Communication, Truthfulness, and Understanding. Episteme 4 (3):285-304.
Matthew Carl Weiner (2003). Testimony: Evidence and Responsibility. Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh
Peter Harrison (1999). Prophecy, Early Modern Apologetics, and Hume's Argument Against Miracles. Journal of the History of Ideas 60 (2):241 - 256.
Nicola Mößner (2011). The Concept of Testimony. In Christoph Jäger & Winfried Löffler (eds.), Epistemology: Contexts, Values, Disagreement, Papers of the 34. International Wittgenstein Symposium. Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society.
Steven L. Reynolds (2002). Testimony, Knowledge, and Epistemic Goals. Philosophical Studies 110 (2):139 - 161.
Richard Otte (2000). Evidential Arguments From Evil. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 48 (1):1-10.
Robert Audi (2013). Testimony as a Social Foundation of Knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 87 (3):507-531.
Added to index2011-05-13
Total downloads25 ( #82,369 of 1,692,598 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #57,552 of 1,692,598 )
How can I increase my downloads?