We Have No Logical Reason To Believe In Miracles

Hume argues that we have no logical reason to believe in miracles on the basis of testimonies from those who claim to have seen a miracle. Miracles in a sense are derived from testimonies which are second-hand evidence from someone’s experience making it unreliable. No one can depend entirely on testimony as if it were to act as an immediate object of our senses since it contradicts our senses.The evidence must be greatly supported for it to be probable for belief, according to Hume. However, we are hesitant to believe some testimonies and question the actuality of it when the report seems falsely orchestrated; it is because there is still the possibility of falsehood in the report. Similarly, Hume also adds another point about why miracles are not reasonable to believe and that is the evidence from barbarous or ignorant people since they are not ‘educated’ enough to discern a false testimony. There are situations where the evidence for and against are present, the one that is selected is the conclusion that outweighs the other. Religion partakes in a role to testimonies and Hume suggests that it is done to put down another belief that is not their own or in their favor. …show more content…
For instance, in dealing the lottery there is a slim chance of winning the grand prize - but it is not impossible. The probability of the winning is one out of several million, but even to that, there is that small percentage that the miracle could be them. Out of all the possible numbers to be selected it was the winning one, and that counter argues with Hume’s statement that based on reason and experience. It is the likelihood that provides support in the idea of a testimony that may seem unlikely, it cannot simply be ruled