David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 82 (3):359 - 375 (1996)
Hume’s famous argument against the credibility of testimony about miracles invokes two premises: 1) The reliability of the witness (the extent to which he is informed and truthful) must be compared with the intrinsic probability of the miracle. 2) The initial probability of a miracle is always small enough to outweigh the improbability that the testimony is false (even when the witness is assumed to be reliable). I defend the first premise of the argument, showing that Hume’s argument can be applied to purported observations of miracles, as well. I then show that Hume failed to provide an adequate support for his second premise. A more cogent defence can be provided for a weaker premise. The resultant argument has, consequently, a less sweeping conclusion than Hume’s
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Aviezer Tucker (2005). Miracles, Historical Testimonies, and Probabilities. History and Theory 44 (3):373–390.
Similar books and articles
Jacqueline Mariña (1998). The Theological and Philosophical Significance of the Markan Account of Miracles. Faith and Philosophy 15 (3):298-323.
Travis Dumsday (2008). Locke on Competing Miracles. Faith and Philosophy 25 (4):416-424.
Richard Otte (2004). Review of Fogelin, A Defense of Hume on Miracles. [REVIEW] Hume Studies 30 (1):165-68.
Michael Almeida (2007). Martin on Miracles. Philo 10 (1):27-34.
C. D. Broad (1916). Hume's Theory of the Credibility of Miracles. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 17:77 - 94.
Robert Young (1980). Miracles and Credibility. Religious Studies 16 (4):465 - 468.
Michael Levine (1997). Bayesian Analyses of Hume's Argument Concerning Miracles. Philosophy and Theology 10 (1):101-106.
T. Brian Mooney & Anthony Imbrosciano (2005). The Curious Case of Mr. Locke's Miracles. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 57 (3):147 - 168.
John Earman (2000). Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads18 ( #109,003 of 1,692,220 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #78,120 of 1,692,220 )
How can I increase my downloads?