Q&A: Your argument in “Faith” about David Hume
Your argument in “Faith” about David Hume
Question
In the last “Faith” lesson (a wonderful series, by the way—an intellectual experience!),
you attacked Hume and the supposedly inconsistent nature of his arguments: on the one hand he demands absolute empiricism, and on the other hand he rejects testimony or observing miracles.
I don’t completely understand! Hume would answer you: true, I have a restrictive requirement that demands absolute empiricism and rejects mental extrapolations, etc.,
but that doesn’t mean that whatever is “empirical” is necessarily true (for example: miracles).
The fact that I reject B (rationality) does not mean that A is necessarily broad and unrestricted (including miracles).
Hume is really formulating two rules: 1. It has to be observable. 2. Even what is observed must still be within the framework of the laws of nature.
The fact that 1 is a principle making a claim about the reliability of visual events does not mean it is a fertile ground for everything you “saw.”..
Answer
I’m not sure you understood what I said, but I’m sure I didn’t understand your question.
My claim against Hume was that he himself cast doubt on scientific generalizations (the problem of induction), yet in his argument against miracles he treats those generalizations as pure and absolute truth. Let me just note that this is, of course, only one of the problems in his remarks.