cards greeting Unicorns
Related Topics:
ecards
cards greeting
greeting cards
cards
greetings
e-cards
free ecards
card
egreetings
birthday
holiday
birthday cards
greeting card
e-card
email
e cards
free
greeting
funny
ecard
animated
electronic
postcards
love
free greeting card
free greeting cards
postcard
online
online greeting cards
free online electronic interactive greet
valentine
life events milestones Christmas musical
at the office stress around the world in
virtual
just because friendship miss you thanks
holidays occasions birthday anniversary
romance
business
free online greeting cards
season
electronic greeting cards
christmas
online greetings
free cards
talking card
american greetings.com
thanksgiving
unicorns
americangreetings
free electronic greeting cards
talking ecard
top
interactive
MSN Greetings
carlton cards
america greeting
Free animated greetings ecards
animated greetings
art
holidays
photo
flash ecard
flowers
e-mail
religious
romantic
flash
xmas
you
friendship
sympathy
thank
printable
email greeting card
Christmas Card
music
American Greetings
free e-card
e-greetings
free e-cards
|
Unicorns cards greeting
.
Unicorns cards greeting Information
Hume's empiricist ideology clearly informed his position on the topic of
miracles. In the following, I will examine Hume's take on empiricism. From this
it will be possible to deduce how Hume's empiricism played a prominent role in
influencing his belief on miracles. First, what were the principles of Hume's
empiricism? Hume claims that everyone is born with a blank slate (tabula rasa).
The tabula rasa receives impressions which are products of immediate experience.
For example, the color of the computer screen I am looking at represents an
impression. Ideas, similarly, are derived from these antecedent impressions; we
are not born with innate ideas, rather we achieve them from experience. There
are three principles that connect ideas: resemblances, contiguity of time or
place, and cause and effect (Hume, 321). Hume further advances that all
reasoning concerning matters of fact are "founded on the relation of cause and
effect" (Hume, 323). Hume's empiricism also states causes and effects are not
discoverable by reason (the theories advanced by Descartes) but by experience.
We do not know the sun will rise because of reason, but we can speculate that it
will rise because of experience. Hume's primary argument is nature teaches us
through experience, therefore we develop customs and habits through these
experiences which give us our beliefs.
So what is Hume's position on
miracles? Hume first defines the term miracle as "a violation of the laws of
nature" (Hume, 391). Laws of nature are established (according to Hume) by
experiences. Because laws of nature are established by past experiences and
miracles are violations of these laws, we can then conclude that miracles are
violations of these experiences. However, though these laws are statements of
past uniform regularities, they do not guarantee uniformity; it is not logically
necessary for laws of nature to continue.
Hume is a skeptic of miracles. He
claims that it may be possible for a miracle to exist. However, he says that
there can never be proper evidence to provide rational acceptance of miracles.
Thus, even if miracles existed, they could never be proven. Hume also attacks
the testimony of those who report miracles. Hume asserts, "We may observe in
human nature a principle which, if strictly examined, will be found to diminish
extremely the assurance, which we might, from human testimony, have, in any kind
of prodigy" (Hume, 393). A testimony may not be entirely accurate because the
surprise and wonder of an apparent miracle may invoke emotions that cause the
person to believe in the miracle, without exacting necessary scrutiny. However,
he does not claim that they are impossible, just improbable. Therefore we are
able to conclude Hume does accept the possibility of miracles, but would examine
them with scrutiny.
So, how does Hume's empiricism relate to miracles? As
previously mentioned, Hume contends that there exist uniform laws of nature.
These laws are derived from uniform experience. A miracle, on the other hand,
provides a contradiction to the uniform experience. Hume notes, however, that
laws do not guarantee conformity, leaving the possibility of miracles. Hume also
says that if you do accept these laws then you are not rational, therefore you
are an empiricist. Furthermore, if you do not believe these laws necessitate
future conformity, then you are not rational because our beliefs about future
events are a result of prior experiences; you are in essence a fool or a madman.
Also, if these laws appear to be broken then a rational person would not believe
in them, therefore these laws are not true laws of nature and should not be
accepted as such. Thus, a miracle, though possible, is improbable. Hume
elaborates by saying, "a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a
direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any
miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered credible"
(Hume, 392). Hume uses the example of the resurrection of a dead person. He
states that through experience we know that no person has risen from the dead.
If a person were to rise from the dead, this would constitute a miracle.
Recognizing the improbability of a miracle, Hume invokes "the hidden variable
thesis," which means miracles, as violations of natural law, are less probable
than any set of natural events required to explain the known facts. Essentially,
there must be some other variable operating that is within the realm of the law
of nature that would explain an apparent contradiction to our law of nature. In
the aforementioned example, the apparent resurrection of a dead person might
result because the person wasn't really dead, various nerves in the body were
still operable-resulting in motion, or the person who reported this miracle was
lying. Thus, Hume's explanation of the laws of nature, and the improbability of
miracles, is rooted in his empiricism. They are based on prior experiences,
which allow us to form the laws of nature. These uniform experiences also permit
Hume to discredit the possibility of miracles. Therefore, Hume's empiricism
directly correlates his position on miracles.
I, personally, agree with
Hume's position on miracles. This, however, is contingent on one's definition of
miracles. As previously noted, Hume defines miracles which are violations of the
laws of nature, derived from our experience over time. If one were to object
Hume's definition of miracles, then it is possible for them to occur. If the
definition of a miracle was expanded to represent an occurrence that was just
improbable (and no violation of any laws of nature) then the power of Hume's
argument would be diminished. For instance, if a miracle is nothing more than
the University of Kentucky winning the National Football Championship (which is
very improbable as everyone knows), then miracles might be possible. Hume,
however, does not purport this definition to miracles. He uses the example of
"better weather in any week of June than in one week of December," to illustrate
this point (Hume, 388). Though experience tells us that this is true, it is
possible that weather in December might be better than that of June. Hume would
not classify this weather phenomenon as a law of nature; therefore no miracle
would have occurred. Hume further claims that a wise main proportions his belief
to evidence. He weighs the probability of an event occurring (through
experience), then uses this to foster his beliefs. If the conclusions are
infallible then a miracle cannot occur (Hume, 388). However, a wise man must
"proceed with caution" when the infallibility of experience is not evident.
I also agree with Hume's position because I am an empiricist. I feel that
people adopt their beliefs of the world due to classical conditioning and
experience. Moreover, much of our actions are a result of the "pleasure, pain"
decision making process. The experiences allow us to adopt the laws of nature. I
would not, however, consider myself an empiricist in the sense of Hume. I feel
that some ideas are innate and we are not born with a tabula rasa. For example,
everyone possesses the concept of self identity without having to experience
anything. You at least know the "I think" as mentioned by Descartes. Not
everything can be based on experiences.
Anyone who considers themselves an
empiricist must adopt Hume's position on miracles. If someone is an empiricist
they must (by definition) base their beliefs on their experiences. The
culmination of uniform experiences creates the laws of nature, as mentioned by
Hume. A miracle, however, violates these laws of nature, thus violates a
person's previous experience. Keep in mind, however, that if a person is an
empiricist, then their beliefs of the world are based on experience. To believe
in a miracle is to discount prior experiences. If one discounts prior
experience, they are not an empiricist. Thus, if you are an empiricist, you must
view miracles as improbable (as noted by Hume). If you do not, then you are not
an empiricist to begin with.
|