Hostname: page-component-686fd747b7-8s9h2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-13T12:20:39.411Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Twenty Questions about Hume's “Of Miracles”*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2011

Peter Millican
Peter Millican
Affiliation:
Hertford College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Hume's essay on the credibility of miracle reports has always been controversial, with much debate over how it should be interpreted, let alone assessed. My aim here is to summarise what I take to be the most plausible views on these issues, both interpretative and philosophical, with references to facilitate deeper investigation if desired. The paper is divided into small sections, each headed by a question that provides a focus. Broadly speaking, §§1–3 and §20 are on Hume's general philosophical framework within which the essay is situated, §§4–11 and §19 are on Part 1, §12–18 are on Part 2, and the final three sections §§18–20 sum up my assessment of his arguments.

Type
Papers
Information
Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements , Volume 68: Philosophy and Religion , July 2011 , pp. 151 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy and the contributors 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aquinas, Thomas (1258–64), Summa Contra Gentiles, translated by Vernon J. Bourke as On the Truth of the Catholic Faith, Doubleday and Co., 1956. Excerpt reprinted in Swinburne, Richard (ed.), Miracles (Macmillan, 1989), pp. 19–22.Google Scholar
Broad, C. D. (1917), “Hume's Theory of the Credibility of Miracles”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 17, pp. 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, R. M. (1981), The Great Debate on Miracles, Associated University Presses.Google Scholar
Butler, Joseph (1736), The Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed, to the Constitution and Course of Nature, ed. Gladstone, W. E., Clarendon Press, 1896 [bracketed § numbers are Gladstone's].Google Scholar
Campbell, George (1762), A Dissertation on Miracles, Edinburgh: A. Kincaid & J. Bell.Google Scholar
Coady, C. A. J. (1973), “Testimony and Observation”, American Philosophical Quarterly 10, pp. 149–55.Google Scholar
Coady, C. A. J. (1992), Testimony, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Coleman, Dorothy (1988), “Hume, Miracles and Lotteries”, Hume Studies 14, pp. 328–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, Dorothy (2001), “Baconian Probability and Hume's Theory of Testimony”, Hume Studies 27, pp. 195–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, John (2000), Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, John (2002), “Bayes, Hume, Price, and Miracles”, Proceedings of the British Academy 113, pp. 91–109.Google Scholar
Flew, Antony (1959), “Hume's Check”, Philosophical Quarterly 9, pp. 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flew, Antony (1961), Hume's Philosophy of Belief, Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Fogelin, Robert J. (2003), A Defense of Hume on Miracles, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
French, Christopher C. and Wilson, Krissy (2007), “Cognitive Factors Underlying Paranormal Beliefs and Experiences”, In Sala, Sergio Della (ed.), Tall Tales about the Mind and Brain: Separating Fact from Fiction, Oxford University Press, pp. 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Don (2002), “Hume on Testimony concerning Miracles”, in Millican, Peter (ed.), Reading Hume on Human Understanding, Clarendon Press, pp. 301–32. Adapted from Garrett, Cognition and Commitment in Hume's Philosophy, Oxford University Press (1997), chapter 7: pp. 137–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaskin, J. C. A. (1988), Hume's Philosophy of Religion, Macmillan, second edition.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillies, Donald (1991), “A Bayesian Proof of a Humean Principle”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 42, pp. 255–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilovich, Thomas, Griffin, Dale, and Kahneman, Daniel, eds (2002), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holder, Rodney D. (1998), “Hume on Miracles: Bayesian Interpretation, Multiple Testimony, and the Existence of God”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49, pp. 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houston, Joseph (1994), Reported Miracles: A Critique of Hume, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howson, Colin (2000), Hume's Problem: Induction and the Justification of Belief, Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, David (1739/40), A Treatise of Human Nature: A Critical Edition, vol. 1, ed. Norton, David Fate and Norton, Mary J., Clarendon Press, 2007 (references indicated by “T” and given to book, part, section and paragraph number).Google Scholar
David, Hume (1741–77), Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary, ed. Miller, Eugene F., Classics, Liberty, second edition 1987 (“Essays”, references given to paragraph number and to page number).Google Scholar
Hume, David (1748), An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, ed. Millican, Peter, Oxford University Press, 2007 (references indicated by “E” and given to section and paragraph number, except when giving page references for additional material such as Hume's letters).Google Scholar
Hume, David (1751), An Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals, ed. Tom L. Beauchamp, Oxford University Press, 1998 (references indicated by “M” and given to section and paragraph number).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, David (1757), A Dissertation on the Passions and The Natural History of Religion, ed. Beauchamp, Tom L., Oxford University Press, 2007 (references to Natural History indicated by “NHR”, and given to section and paragraph number).Google Scholar
Hume, David (1932), The Letters of David Hume, ed. Greig, J. Y. T., 2 vols, Clarendon Press (references indicated by “HL”).Google Scholar
Hume, David (1954), New Letters of David Hume, ed. Klibansky, R. and Mossner, E. C., Clarendon Press (references indicated by “NHL”).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, David (1999), Hume, Holism, and Miracles, Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Larmer, Robert (1996), “David Hume and the Miraculous” in Larmer, (ed.), Questions of Miracle, McGill-Queen's University Press, pp. 26–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, C. S. (1947), Miracles: A Preliminary Study, Macmillan.Google Scholar
Locke, John (1690), An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Nidditch, P. H., Clarendon Press, 1975 (“Essay”, references given to book, chapter and section number).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombrozo, Tania, Kelemen, Deborah and Zaitchik, Deborah (2007), “Inferring Design: Evidence of a preference for teleological explanations in patients with Alzheimer's disease”, Psychological Science 18.11, pp. 999–1006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mackie, J. L. (1982), The Miracle of Theism, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Millican, Peter (1993), “‘Hume's Theorem’ Concerning Miracles”, Philosophical Quarterly 43, pp. 489–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millican, Peter (2003), “Hume, Miracles, and Probabilities: Meeting Earman's Challenge”, available online at http://www.davidhume.org/documents/2003 Miracles and Probabilities.pdf (as presented at the Las Vegas Hume Conference, July 2003).Google Scholar
Millican, Peter (2007a), “Humes Old and New: Four Fashionable Falsehoods, and One Unfashionable Truth”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 81, pp. 163–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millican, Peter (2007b), “Against the ‘New Hume’”, in Rupert Read and Richman, Kenneth A. (eds), The New Hume Debate: Revised Edition, Routledge, pp. 211–52.Google Scholar
Millican, Peter (2009), “Hume, Causal Realism, and Causal Science”, Mind 118, pp. 647–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Harold (2007), Hume, Oneworld Publications.Google Scholar
Norton, David Fate (1982), David Hume: Common-Sense Moralist, Sceptical Metaphysician, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Price, Richard (1768), On the Importance of Christianity and the Nature of Historical Evidence, and Miracles, Dissertation IV of Four Dissertations, second edition (first edition was 1767), London: A. Millar and T. Cadell.Google Scholar
Purtill, Richard L. (1978), “Miracles: What if They Happen?” in Swinburne, Richard (ed.), Miracles Macmillan, 1989), pp. 189–205. From Purtill, Thinking about Religion, Prentice Hall, pp. 65–79.Google Scholar
Selby-Bigge, L. A. (1894), “Editor's Introduction” to Enquiries Concerning the Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals by David Hume, Clarendon Press, pp. vii–xxxi.Google Scholar
Sherlock, Thomas (1729), The Tryal of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus, London: J. Roberts.Google Scholar
Sobel, Jordan Howard (1991), “Hume's Theorem on Testimony Sufficient to Establish a Miracle”, Philosophical Quarterly 41, pp. 229–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroud, Barry (1977), Hume, Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Swinburne, Richard (1968), “Miracles”, Philosophical Quarterly 18, pp. 320–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinburne, Richard (1996), Is There a God?, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traiger, Saul (1993), “Humean Testimony”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 74, pp. 135–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, Amos and Kahneman, Daniel (1974), “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases”, Science 185, pp. 1124–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, Fred (1989), “The Logic of Probabilities in Hume's Argument against Miracles”, Hume Studies 15, pp. 255–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wootton, David (1990), “Hume's ‘Of Miracles’: Probability and Irreligion”, In Stewart, M. A. (ed.), Studies in the Philosophy of the Scottish Enlightenment, Clarendon Press, pp. 191–229.Google Scholar