Philosophy of Religion

Question 4 (Hume’s Argument)

Hume’s religious contributions have contemporary significance and lasting impact. According to (Michael Peterson 14), he has in sighted various aspects of theologies which give a clear overview of his attempts at undermining religion justifications. These justifications are revealed in his philosophical writings. However, Hume’s religion’s view is not transparent and he is therefore believed not to have been a theist in any senses of traditions. Hume gives an argument in which we do not have the justification to believe testimonies that certain miracles have occurred or taken place. He argues that the reason to this is because it is evident in that nature’s uniform laws will forever be stronger. If Hume’s argument in that; it is not reasonable to believe in the reports of miracles, then his claim would be undermining the bible and sacred texts that relies and testifies to miracles as truth’s guarantors.

Firstly, Hume’s defines miracles as; the laws of nature violation and also as transgression of these nature laws by interposition of invisible agents or by particular volitions. He goes ahead and indicates that as a matter of fact religious content are always in miracles but he also believes that these miracles are violation of nature laws whose causes are nature’s outsides agents. From his definition of miracles, it is very clear that these laws have no counter examples and they have no ideally relations because their denial is consequent always and they also have some content that is empirical (Michael Peterson, 13).

Hume’s conception of nature laws is therefore very significant in that there must be experiences that must be uniform and that they should be against every event of miracles and if not so then, no merits would be drawn from these events. His proofs are also very crucial in that they prove that there is inexistence of miracles hence there is no credibility that is rendered by them. His other proofs are also very superior where he points out that there are no sufficient testimonies that establish miracles not unless falsehood of these testimonies would be even more miraculous. Hume gives an analysis of miracles occurrences impossibility. This implies that, no testimonies that can be used in persuading people so that they can believe that miracles exist. However, in today’s lives most people assume Hume’s proofs and arguments that terms inexistence of miracles.

The Caricature argument that Hume’s use as one of the proofs to support his argument on miracles is very significant today. This is because, in some cases, we could be faced with hypothetical situations and our miracle beliefs would be outlined through the testimonies that we would opt to use at those specific situations (Michael Peterson 14). Hume describes proofs for total darkness as an interpretation of establishing methods of beliefs justification, and based on testimonies miracles could have occurred. Here, we draw a conclusion in that even where testimonies of events that were strange were to sum up to these proofs, there would be more reasons to infer to natural things regularities instead of coming up with miracles conclusions. When encountered by situations such as violation of nature or miracles we ought to conclude the latter.

Hume further argues that; it is the history’s business to differentiate between marvelous and miraculous that is; to first reject in narrations that are all merely human. Secondly, to pose doubts when we encounter a testimony that is unquestionable. Thirdly, we should admit extraordinary things by receiving little of them as they as consistent with circumstances and facts that are known. He also suggests that we mostly reject testimonies that are miraculous but accept only much of the marvelous. We are however required to remain consistent with unquestionable testimony. For Hume, miracle’s testimonies should have a rejection always so that it can align with his naturalistic interpretation, thus he does not give proofs of miracles as possibilities that are real.

However, there is difficulty in relation to the mode of concerns that is in the conclusion, in close observation of Hume couching his arguments and regards to beliefs that are appropriate. Hume’s conclusions therefore, should have an interpretation as being epistemic. The Caricature argument that he utilizes comes up with conclusions in that miracles are inexistence and they are as well impossible. His entire argument outlines ways through which we assign our beliefs that concerns testimonies. Hume talks about our evidences that are; miracle’s and belief’s truths have contrast to rules of just resonance and that establishment of these does not have any evidence (Michael Peterson 13). For example, there are no proofs of miracles by just saying that occurrences of these miracles has never or could ever occur thus, this gives us a reason to reject Caricature arguments.

There are also implications in regards to metaphysical conclusion for example, avowal of Hume that states that there is an essence of miracles while on the other hand, there could be miracles that are un-witnessed. From Hume’s arguments we can conclude that the support of his arguments are, beliefs concerning fact matters have probabilities and proofs that support them and varies in strength and degree. He also outlines that the probability of testimonies and that which supports occurrences of miracles, have evidences that are weak than those proofs that supports laws of nature. In addition to that, nature laws are fact beliefs and have strongest possible evidences and proofs. These arguments that are drawn from Hume, tries to convince us that we should not believe in testimonies in that miracles have occurred.

Following his arguments, we have premises that are empirical instead of definitions that provide support to these key inferences. Reconstruction is therefore a demonstration but not a proof. However, there is a challenge in this because, maintenance of Hume’s position where he points out that men regardless of their age, approve to nature laws constancy and miraculous testimonies should not be included, even if there are still those people that testify to miracles. Hume’s arguments that concern nature laws are very significant in that they govern our beliefs and this can strengthen our recognition to understand that these laws of nature are conditions that are necessary when giving out testimonies of miracles.

The human nature fact that we gets from Hume, is that that if one wants to have beliefs in that miracles exists, we are most likely to undergo stories of miraculous rather than of the mundane. This therefore, gives a clear explanation as to why humans ought to be credulous with miracles as well as why there is a widespread of phenomenon. If there is any right in the Hume’s argument there should be people who reasonably believe that.

Works cited

Peterson, Michael L. Philosophy of religion: selected readings. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Print.

Peterson, Michael L. Reason and religious belief: an introduction to the philosophy of religion. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Print.