In Christopher Bernard (ed.), God Matters: Readings in the Philosophy of Religion. Longman Publications (2003)

Daniel Howard-Snyder
Western Washington University
According to the Christian religion, Jesus was “crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again”. I take it that this rising again—the Resurrection of Jesus, as it’s sometimes called—is, according to the Christian religion, an historical event, just like his crucifixion, death, and burial. And I would have thought that to investigate whether the Resurrection occurred, we would need to do some historical research: we would need to assess the reliability of the New Testament documents and related manuscripts; we would need to look into the credibility of the witnesses to his post-mortem appearances, the empty tomb, and the like. The task looks rather daunting. But, according to David Hume, we don’t have to do anything of the kind. For no matter how strong the testimony in favor of a miracle is—indeed, even if we “suppose…that the testimony considered apart and in itself, amounts to an entire proof”—we have at our disposal a “full proof…against the existence of any miracle”. So we can avoid all that tedious historical work. We can simply use Hume’s shortcut, a proof against the existence of any miracle, and hence a proof against the Resurrection. So Hume says he has a “a decisive argument,” “an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion,” superstitious delusions like the Resurrection. There is good news and bad news in Hume’s proclamation. The good news is that he really has two arguments, not just one—or, at any rate, many scholars discern in his writings two arguments. The bad news is that neither succeeds; at any rate, try as I might, I can’t see how they do.
Keywords theism  Christianity  miracles  David Hume  Jesus  resurrection  atheism
Categories (categorize this paper)
Buy the book Find it on
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

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

The Impossibility of Miracles.Nicholas Everitt - 1987 - Religious Studies 23 (3):347 - 349.
Miracles.Michael Levine - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

David Hume and the Probability of Miracles.George I. Mavrodes - 1998 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 43 (3):167-182.
A New Interpretation of Hume's 'Of Miracles'.Chris Slupik - 1995 - Religious Studies 31 (4):517 - 536.
Hume’s Scale.Hendrik van der Breggen - 2002 - Philosophia Christi 4 (2):443 - 453.
The Credibility of Miracles.Ruth Weintraub - 1996 - Philosophical Studies 82 (3):359 - 375.
Hume and Miracles.Matthew C. Bagger - 1997 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 35 (2):237 - 251.
Contrary Miracles Concluded.J. C. A. Gaskin - 1985 - Hume Studies 1985 (Supplement):1 - 14.
Hume on Miracles: Interpretation and Criticism.James E. Taylor - 2007 - Philosophy Compass 2 (4):611–624.
Hume's Evidential/Testimonial Epistemology, Probability, and Miracles.Francis J. Beckwith - 1991 - Logos. Anales Del Seminario de Metafísica [Universidad Complutense de Madrid, España] 12:87 - 104.


Added to PP index

Total views
1,462 ( #2,719 of 2,439,674 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
233 ( #2,212 of 2,439,674 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes