I just came across something composed by Hume that's relevant when debating those of a religious viewpoint. In
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding Hume writes:
Hume writes:
The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), "That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."
In other words, always choose the lesser miracle. Hume goes on:
When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other, and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.
In discussions here we often find ourselves asked to accept claims of miracles. For example, "How could a dispirited group whose leader had just been crucified suddenly become joyous and enthusiastic while proclaiming that their Lord had risen unless it had really happened?"
For another example, "Life's complexity is too great to have arisen by chance random events, and the unique conditions of Earth are too special for life to have just happened naturally, and so God must have been responsible."
But application of Hume's Maxim requires the dismissal of all claims like these. Which is more miraculous: that a crucified man returned to life and then rose bodily to heaven? Or that the apostles lied, or that the Gospels are fiction, or some other similarly mundane explanation? By the maxim of the least miraculous, we rule against the resurrection and the ascension.
And concerning life's complexity, which is the more miraculous: that an unseen God created the earth and life upon it? Or that the same natural forces we observe every day formed the earth and life? By Hume's maxim we must conclude in favor of natural processes.
I wonder what those of religious persuasion think of Hume's Maxim.
Is it science?
--Percy
™ Version 4.2