Arguments for and against the existence of God have been around for thousands of years. Philosophers have been using arguments as an attempt to validate their beliefs. To do this, philosophers string together a series of statements to form different types of arguments, including deductive, inductive, a priori, and a posteriori arguments. Furthermore, a few philosophers use evidential approaches to establish the existence of God. Often, these approaches include pragmatics or direct perception, such as appeals to religious experience. Generally, religious experience refers to mystical experiences or miracles. David Hume presents an argument as to why we are almost never justified in believing that a miracle has occurred. Following will be a
…show more content…
All testimony of miracles occurring is based off of experience, but that experience opposes this testimony due to what we know about the laws of nature. Hume says that God may be all-powerful and could have the ability to contradict the laws of nature, but we cannot attribute him with those qualities unless our experiences were to tell us that we should. Hume concludes by stating that religion is based in faith, not in reason. There is no rationality behind trusting or believing miracles, and all miracles that are in the Bible, in his opinion, are more likely to be fabrications than true facts.
P1: One ought to proportion one's belief to the evidence.
P2: Experience is generally better evidence than testimony (if for no other reason than that valid testimony is based on another’s sense experience).
P3: Therefore, when there is a conflict between sense experience and testimony, one ought to believe according to sense perception.
P4: Miracles are contrary to experience. That is, experience testifies strongly to the fact that miracles never occur, laws of nature are never …show more content…
We are obligated to acknowledge and agree only with aspects in which we have exceptional reasons and evidence for (Plantinga, 2000). In other words, we misuse our “faculties” when we form a belief about something of importance without possessing sufficient evidence in favor of that belief. We can also misuse our skills and abilities when we believe something “with a degree of firmness that is not proportioned to the strength of our evidence” (Chignell, 2016). Locke also says that by doing this, we contradict the will of our “Maker.” According to Jeff Jordan, there is a significant moral duty to proportion one’s belief to the evidence; being a morally responsible person requires that one has good reasons for each of one’s beliefs. When one believes an unsupported proposition, one violates this important moral duty (2014). By taking into account Hume’s statement that one must proportion one’s belief to the evidence, we are maximizing the amount of our true beliefs and minimizing the amount of our false ones. There seems to be very little debate about this statement made by David Hume, meaning that it is widely agreed upon and should be accepted by
All testimony of miracles occurring is based off of experience, but that experience opposes this testimony due to what we know about the laws of nature. Hume says that God may be all-powerful and could have the ability to contradict the laws of nature, but we cannot attribute him with those qualities unless our experiences were to tell us that we should. Hume concludes by stating that religion is based in faith, not in reason. There is no rationality behind trusting or believing miracles, and all miracles that are in the Bible, in his opinion, are more likely to be fabrications than true facts.
P1: One ought to proportion one's belief to the evidence.
P2: Experience is generally better evidence than testimony (if for no other reason than that valid testimony is based on another’s sense experience).
P3: Therefore, when there is a conflict between sense experience and testimony, one ought to believe according to sense perception.
P4: Miracles are contrary to experience. That is, experience testifies strongly to the fact that miracles never occur, laws of nature are never …show more content…
We are obligated to acknowledge and agree only with aspects in which we have exceptional reasons and evidence for (Plantinga, 2000). In other words, we misuse our “faculties” when we form a belief about something of importance without possessing sufficient evidence in favor of that belief. We can also misuse our skills and abilities when we believe something “with a degree of firmness that is not proportioned to the strength of our evidence” (Chignell, 2016). Locke also says that by doing this, we contradict the will of our “Maker.” According to Jeff Jordan, there is a significant moral duty to proportion one’s belief to the evidence; being a morally responsible person requires that one has good reasons for each of one’s beliefs. When one believes an unsupported proposition, one violates this important moral duty (2014). By taking into account Hume’s statement that one must proportion one’s belief to the evidence, we are maximizing the amount of our true beliefs and minimizing the amount of our false ones. There seems to be very little debate about this statement made by David Hume, meaning that it is widely agreed upon and should be accepted by