Analysis Of David Hume's Of Miracles

“Man is by nature a social animal,” (Aristotle). Indeed, in a cognitive neuroscience investigation, Zaki et al. (2011) found people naturally desire social inclusion. This trait, perhaps originally a survival tactic, has made us especially prone to be influenced by others. Recognizing this problem, Hume wrote his controversial piece, Of Miracles, to argue that it is unreasonable for people to believe in testimony-based miracles. For his argument, Hume makes several claims. First, he defines a miracle as a violation of the laws of nature. Then, he establishes that when deciding between two choices, one should always pick the choice with more support. Because there is always more evidence that a law of nature is not violated, Hume claims any …show more content…
Before bringing Hume into the picture, it is important to first examine how scientific findings like Zaki et al.’s rely on faith: Zaki et al. must believe the findings from previous papers regarding the functions of the neural regions, namely orbitofrontal cortex and nucleus accumbens, to assess their data and to come up with their explanation. Upon closer evaluation, it becomes evident that Zaki et al.’s conclusions rely on testimonies reported by others, which is coincidentally a topic vividly explored by Hume. Although Hume focuses on the credibility of miracle testimonies, his argument can also be applied to other testimonies. Suppose, then, that I doubt the truthfulness of the previously reported findings discussed by Zaki et al. First, I would investigate the methods and instruments used. To determine the accuracy of the instruments, e.g., a fMRI, I need to use another measuring instrument; however, the accuracy of this measuring instruments also needs to be investigated against another instrument. This loop will reoccur until it reaches the very beginning, a leap of faith; that is, a belief that the first instrument, the calibrator, is accurate. While this belief appears to be ungrounded when examining from a scientific perspective, it can be rationalized using Hume’s argument. Specifically, he argues that certain things, such as the laws of nature, has always held true. Every time a law of nature is repeated, e.g., a rubber ball falls to the ground when I drop it, it acts as a form of evidence; it would be more absurd and unlikely that it was not to happen, e.g., a rubber ball flies up and hits me in the face when I drop it. Likewise, in science, if the calibrator has always held true time after time, then there is some evidence to justify a belief in this calibrator. Given