Q&A: Faith Lesson 37
Faith Lesson 37
Question
A question about the Faith series. Lesson 37 on YouTube.
The Rabbi gave two critiques of David Hume’s witness argument.
The first attacks it from the fact that his claim does not meet the test of falsifiability, since it is impossible to accept any testimony at all and also to experience supernatural things. About this I asked: after all, the proofs for the existence of God, and likewise for His revelation, also do not meet the test of falsifiability.
But all this shows is that the existence of God and His revelation are not scientific—nothing more. David Hume too does not prove the witness claim in a scientific way, so the first criticism is not clear to me.
I’d be happy for an answer.
Answer
Hume makes his claim in the name of science and against the supernatural. I am saying that on his own approach, his thesis is not scientific, because it cannot be subjected to a test of falsifiability.
It is completely true that what is scientific is not identical with what is true, and vice versa.
Discussion on Answer
No, it is not correct. I explained at length why. You asked about the specific claim that it is not falsifiable, and that is what I answered here.
And if he had made the claim in the name of philosophy, then his claim would be correct?
In the end, the claim is philosophical.