David Hume, in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, claims a reasonable person should not be able to believe in miracles, especially if informed of a miracle through testimony; his argument concerning why people should be incapable of believing miracles is cogent, but he fails to adequately explain why people do believe in miracles even though they should not be able to. His theory is based on a previously outlined idea which Hume calls “constant conjunction”; people use a constant conjunction of events to determine the likelihood of a particular cause yielding a particular effect. Hume argues against miracles in order to “silence the most arrogant bigotry and superstition and free us from their impertinent solicitations”, he has strong
…show more content…
However, Hume fails to logically explain why people do believe in miracles. He provides one explanation “a religionist may be an enthusiast and imagine he sees what has no reality. He may know his narrative to be false and yet persevere in it with the best intentions in the world”, so a person may be so religiously fanatical that they may lie knowingly because they believe they are benefiting society (Hume 580). However, reasonable people should still recognize, using their experience-based knowledge that the testimony is false and disregard it. The same problem arises when Hume claims “Eloquence, when at its highest pitch, leaves little room for reason or reflection...captivates the willing hearers and subdues their understanding”; a person could be so charming when delivering testimony that a person is enthralled and compelled to believe it (581). Even if Hume’s claim is true, a reasonable person should still, at least when not in the presence of the charming testifier, be able to recognize the testimony as fantastical. His final explanation is that miracles are mostly observed “among ignorant and barbarous nations; or if a civilized people has ever given admission to any of them that people will be found to have received them from ignorant and barbarous ancestors, who transmitted them with that inviolable sanction and authority which always attend received opinions”, so he claims uncivilized barbarians are stupid and therefore would believe unrealistic and fictional testimony, which a civilized person would not believe (Hume 581). The assumption is problematic because a barbarian, though uncivilized, is still a person and has the same faculties for experiential learning as everybody else. A barbarian would still be able to recognize if a person’s testimony goes against the constant conjunction
However, Hume fails to logically explain why people do believe in miracles. He provides one explanation “a religionist may be an enthusiast and imagine he sees what has no reality. He may know his narrative to be false and yet persevere in it with the best intentions in the world”, so a person may be so religiously fanatical that they may lie knowingly because they believe they are benefiting society (Hume 580). However, reasonable people should still recognize, using their experience-based knowledge that the testimony is false and disregard it. The same problem arises when Hume claims “Eloquence, when at its highest pitch, leaves little room for reason or reflection...captivates the willing hearers and subdues their understanding”; a person could be so charming when delivering testimony that a person is enthralled and compelled to believe it (581). Even if Hume’s claim is true, a reasonable person should still, at least when not in the presence of the charming testifier, be able to recognize the testimony as fantastical. His final explanation is that miracles are mostly observed “among ignorant and barbarous nations; or if a civilized people has ever given admission to any of them that people will be found to have received them from ignorant and barbarous ancestors, who transmitted them with that inviolable sanction and authority which always attend received opinions”, so he claims uncivilized barbarians are stupid and therefore would believe unrealistic and fictional testimony, which a civilized person would not believe (Hume 581). The assumption is problematic because a barbarian, though uncivilized, is still a person and has the same faculties for experiential learning as everybody else. A barbarian would still be able to recognize if a person’s testimony goes against the constant conjunction