Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian
From: sc1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Chan)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Hume, miracles, induction
Message-ID: <Dec.14.03.32.15.1990.27299@athos.rutgers.edu>
Date: 14 Dec 90 08:32:16 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Lines: 64
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

>Excerpts from netnews.soc.religion.christian: 11-Dec-90 Hume, miracles,
induction Richard A. O'Keefe@goann (2346)
>
> >Never mind what the "real" answer to induction is, the point is that
> >this was _Hume's_ answer:  you cannot _rationally_ conclude from any
> >number of repetitions that the future will resemble the past.

	I think that you should be a little more precise in looking at the
language: Hume claims that reason _alone_ is insufficient to establish a
*causal* relationship.
	It is *belief* (which is something outside the realm of reason) which
provides the key step that allows us to make causal claims.
	Thus, it is possible to make causal inferences, but they are not based
on reason alone.

	Thus, a form of empiricism which relies solely on rationality MUST
degenerate into pure skepticism. Hume is making an argument against pure
reason, not an argument *for* radical skepticism.

>Excerpts from netnews.soc.religion.christian: 11-Dec-90 Hume, miracles,
induction Richard A. O'Keefe@goann (2346)
>
> >    1.  Introduction of straw man:
> >	"A miracle is something which violates natural law".
>
> >    2.	Assume the result of the argument:
> >	"We have absolutely uniform experience that natural laws
> >	 have never been violated"
>
> >    3.	Complete the circle:
> >	"Therefore miracles _can't_ happen".

	This argument doesn't contradict the first part (once you know what
Hume is really getting at).

	The argument isn't circular either.

	Hume makes 2 assumptions in the argument, and ends up with a
contradiction. So, he chooses to throw out the first assumption "A
miracle is something which violates natural law."

	However, there is no logical reason why we can't throw out the SECOND
assumption "we have absolutely uniform experience that natural laws have
never been violated".
	In fact, invalidating the second assumption seems more reasonable to me.

	Obviously the existence of miracle claims invalidates the assertion
that *all* our experience is uniform.
	There are several Catholic Saints who have the "miraculous" property of
being "incorruptible"; i.e. after death, they have not decomposed. Even
now, they are lying in state in various places around the world. St.
Phillip Neiri (sp?), who is the saint associated with the Newman Centers
at many colleges, is one such incorruptible.
	Every once in a while, these saints "miraculously" produce pleasant
odors and sometimes tears fall from their eyes. These tears are supposed
to have amazing curative properties.
	Countless people have witnessed these things.


	Hume always claimed that reason was the lackey of the passions; he
himself fell in this trap when he uses reason to prove his personal
conviction that miracles can't exist.

	Stephen Chan