David Hume Testimonial Evidence Essay

Hume argues that believing miracles are based solely on testimonial evidence is irrational. Hume believes that we tie testimonies with normally being true or facts, but Hume himself believes that testimony and it being true or the facts varies. Hume says we have no compelling reason to believe in miracles, and certainly not to consider them foundational to any religion. Our knowledge of miracles comes exclusively from the testimony of others who claim to have seen miracles. Since we receive these testimonies secondhand from the experience of others, we should treat them as less reliable than our own experience. Concerning Miracles, our evidence in favor of their existence comes from testimony of witnesses, and our evidence against them comes from the laws of nature, our faith in the testimony of others and our knowledge of the laws of nature are founded in experience. Testimony tends to be held in our reality and can vary while the laws of nature are constant. Hume explains that miraculous events are violation of the Laws of nature, and are only to be held true when it is more forceful/logical than the laws …show more content…
His first reason is, no miracle is supported by testimony of a sufficient number of trustworthy people. Second, since we tend to tie past experience with future experiences the surprises and wonder often lead us to unreasonable belief is these miracles, such as many tall tales, they begin as something believable then due to wonder it becomes filled with miracles . Third reason, which reinforced the second, miracles tend to happen around barbarous/ignorant people who aren’t sophisticated enough to disbelief in the event. His fourth reason, every religion claims its own miracles and uses them against the miracles of every other religion; the evidence of all other religions opposes the evidence in favor of a miracle in any particular