I chose this title due to the double entendre. Hume, of course, might roll over in his grave if he saw it expressed in terms of a miracle. ;-) Here's what I wrote in my book, describing the uphill problem I have in defending David Hume on miracles in The Case against Miracles, p. 552].
These are the reasons why I'm attempting the miracle of resurrecting Hume. ;-)
1) It's a matter of recognizing the historical fact of Hume's influence over us.
A) About such a quest, I'm doing a similar quest to get my great grandfather Tom Loftus recognized for his important role in starting professional baseball's American League, even getting him into the Baseball Hall of Fame if I can. LINK. Here are more posts about him. Above all see the article in the Spring 2020 Baseball Research Journal, Tom Loftus: The American League’s Forgotten Founding Father. No one else did more for Baseball than the founders of the American League, and he was one of three of them (with Charles Comiskey and Ban Johnson). If I can attempt this feat then why not attempt the other? Both feats are worthy even if I fail at both of them.
B) We know that Hume’s essay changed the course of theology and even helped to advance science. We stand on the shoulders of giants like Hume. No other contemporary writer in his day did that. Hume had a great influence on Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), the “father” of modern theology, who in turn significantly influenced David Friedrich Strauss (1808-1874) at the University of Tübingen (1825-1831). Strauss regularly attended Schleiermacher’s “Life of Jesus” lectures. Then in 1835-1836, at the age of 27, Strauss published a massive work in two volumes titled, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined. In it Strauss denied the historical value of the Gospels by rejecting its miraculous claims as myths. Hume’s essay also bolstered Darwin’s resolve to pursue the biological evidence of evolution without recourse to a miracle-wielding god. Hume scholars William Morris and Charlotte Brown tell us that “Charles Darwin counted Hume as a central influence.” [See William Edward Morris and Charlotte R. Brown, “David Hume” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2023 edn.) ed. E. N. Zalta (Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 2023).
C) The analogy of Plato. Alfred North Whitehead quipped that, "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato." It highlights how he delineated the basic questions of metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology which philosophers have studied since his time. It highlights Plato's influence over philosophy, although the claim that philosophy is a footnote to Plato is often debated among scholars. Hume, being recognized by many philosophers as the greatest English speaking philosopher, also needs his due recognition when it comes to miracles.
2) Two Specific Initial Criticisms of Hume.
A) John Earman viciously criticized Hume in his anthology Hume's Abject Failure, The Argument Against Miracles (2000). One of his claims is that "Hume's famous essay on miracles is set in the context of the larger debate that was taking place in the eighteenth century about the nature of miracles and the ability of eyewitness testimony to establish the credibility of such events. Hume's argument against miracles is largely unoriginal..." He says, "'Of Miracles' is often treated as if it were a genuinely original piece of philosophy. But although it does contain some original insights and is cast in Hume's characteristically forceful prose, it is in fact a largely derivative work." [Chapter 1, Section 7].
While some of the arguments Hume made were, loosely speaking, floating around in his day, it hardly goes to say that his particular argument in "Of Miracles" was made by anyone else. Earman shows where John Locke had some influence on Hume, but merely suggests some others may also have influenced him, without providing any direct evidence. Hume doesn't really say he came up with his argument, anyway. He says he "discovered" it, even though it's clear he's taking ownership of it. The way a particular argument is expressed can make that argument more powerful. Sometimes it matters who makes that argument. People were forced to pay attention to Hume, known to "the wise and learned" as a great philosopher and a great historian. For he had became widely known for his massive 6 volumes series on The History of England, published from 1754 to 1762. When readers of Hume's history learned he ridiculed believers for believing in the impossible, it was his arrogance and his ridicule that most likely thrust what he argued into the spotlight like nothing else, and it still does.
B) No one likes an arrogant person. No one likes to be ridiculed for what they think either. That's what Hume did, and it got the attention of the philosophical elites. Hume:
3) I like taking on challenges. Doing so makes me think deeper and work harder than I would otherwise. So why not try?
A) If it's worth doing it's worth doing badly.
B) Christians disparage Hume's name, arguments, and legacy, so they need some pushback from someone like me. Just as I won't cave into their irrational and unevidenced beliefs, I won't cave into their attempts to disparage the name of Hume. I might be wrong, but I think he deserves defending.
C) Christians talk about steelmanning arguments nowadays. It's akin to the "Principle of Charity" but goes beyond it. It not only tries to avoid the fallacy of the strawman, it goes further by beefing up the arguments of others whom we disagree. Since no one disagrees with doing this in principle, that's what I'm doing with regard to David Hume. Hume was a very deep thinker. If it appears he made an easy mistake, or simple error in wording, then it's quite obvious that by steelmanning him we can find a reasonable sense to what he said.
D) In defending Hume I'll kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. I'm advancing good arguments and highlighting Hume's towering figure over us at the same time. Doing both will accomplish both goals at the same time. If I succeed then it will do all fairminded people a service. If I fail, then any arguments I advance that are good will last.
Since Christians are convinced Hume’s arguments against miracles have been “refuted” (per William Lane Craig in a personal conversation), some atheists are trying to reach out to Christians by avoiding Hume entirely. Benjamin Blake Speed Watkins, who Hosts and Produces Real Atheology – A Philosophy of Religion Podcast, is one of them. He said, “I see arguments against miracles as separate from Hume. We can have substantive discussion without ever appealing to him.” Now this can be done, I don’t doubt. But I don’t see the need to do it. I also think we should give credit where credit is due. I can’t imagine ignoring David Hume, the philosopher who originally put the issue of miracles up for discussion, like no other had done before. That would be an injustice. I understand that Christians identify the best arguments against miracles with Hume’s arguments. I also understand they think Hume’s arguments fail. So I’m not oblivious they conclude that with Hume’s demise so also goes the case against miracles. Just the same, it makes sense to defend Hume if he can be defended, and I think he can. When we do so successfully it doubly undercuts Christian apologetics. For not only do we show Hume’s arguments defeat the believability of miracles. By showing Christians are wrong about Hume, it also shows how badly they argue their case on behalf of miracles.Richard Carrier recently said I'm wrong to try, via email:
I think Hume should be dealt with much more briefly as having said something useful but centuries obsolete and thus no longer worth distracting ourselves with. That just helps theists, because they can throw up sand and argue endlessly over his choice of sentences and wording, when we could just say “why are you still talking about that, that’s centuries obsolete?” and thus pull the rug out from under that entire tactic. Force them instead to deal directly with the modern math. They will have a far harder time coming up with convoluted rhetoric to evade simple math than to make hay out of some long dead provocateur's 18th century prose.Then again:
I don’t see value in trying to fix or explain hundreds years old obsolete stuff, even when clever or historically important. That wastes a lot of energy to no point. It’s great if you are doing history of the 18th century or something. But in philosophy, the name “Hume” should have no value argumentatively. So I think it’s pointless to try and fix “him.” Forget him. We have the benefit of two hundred plus years of scientific, logical, and mathematical advances since. We should just formulate the correct argument and be done with it. His name never need be mentioned; and mentioning it is just a distraction that triggers the howling monkeys of Christian apologetics. Make them confront the correct argument, rather than waste time arguing over what Hume’s centuries-old selection of words meant. Which fits into my ideal principle: never give a Christian an opening to derail a conversation by arguing over irrelevant trivia instead of the actual point being made. Try to prevent rather than facilitate that. It’s hard. But it should be the best aim.From the outset, just to be sure, I have argued against miracles without depending on Hume. I mentioned him twice in two papers with just one link each. I did so for The Secular Web. One is titled, Hail Mary: Was Virgin Mary Truly the Mother of God’s Son?, and another one is titled, Assessing McIntosh’s Sophisticated Defense of Miracles.
These are the reasons why I'm attempting the miracle of resurrecting Hume. ;-)
1) It's a matter of recognizing the historical fact of Hume's influence over us.
A) About such a quest, I'm doing a similar quest to get my great grandfather Tom Loftus recognized for his important role in starting professional baseball's American League, even getting him into the Baseball Hall of Fame if I can. LINK. Here are more posts about him. Above all see the article in the Spring 2020 Baseball Research Journal, Tom Loftus: The American League’s Forgotten Founding Father. No one else did more for Baseball than the founders of the American League, and he was one of three of them (with Charles Comiskey and Ban Johnson). If I can attempt this feat then why not attempt the other? Both feats are worthy even if I fail at both of them.
B) We know that Hume’s essay changed the course of theology and even helped to advance science. We stand on the shoulders of giants like Hume. No other contemporary writer in his day did that. Hume had a great influence on Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), the “father” of modern theology, who in turn significantly influenced David Friedrich Strauss (1808-1874) at the University of Tübingen (1825-1831). Strauss regularly attended Schleiermacher’s “Life of Jesus” lectures. Then in 1835-1836, at the age of 27, Strauss published a massive work in two volumes titled, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined. In it Strauss denied the historical value of the Gospels by rejecting its miraculous claims as myths. Hume’s essay also bolstered Darwin’s resolve to pursue the biological evidence of evolution without recourse to a miracle-wielding god. Hume scholars William Morris and Charlotte Brown tell us that “Charles Darwin counted Hume as a central influence.” [See William Edward Morris and Charlotte R. Brown, “David Hume” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2023 edn.) ed. E. N. Zalta (Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 2023).
C) The analogy of Plato. Alfred North Whitehead quipped that, "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato." It highlights how he delineated the basic questions of metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology which philosophers have studied since his time. It highlights Plato's influence over philosophy, although the claim that philosophy is a footnote to Plato is often debated among scholars. Hume, being recognized by many philosophers as the greatest English speaking philosopher, also needs his due recognition when it comes to miracles.
2) Two Specific Initial Criticisms of Hume.
A) John Earman viciously criticized Hume in his anthology Hume's Abject Failure, The Argument Against Miracles (2000). One of his claims is that "Hume's famous essay on miracles is set in the context of the larger debate that was taking place in the eighteenth century about the nature of miracles and the ability of eyewitness testimony to establish the credibility of such events. Hume's argument against miracles is largely unoriginal..." He says, "'Of Miracles' is often treated as if it were a genuinely original piece of philosophy. But although it does contain some original insights and is cast in Hume's characteristically forceful prose, it is in fact a largely derivative work." [Chapter 1, Section 7].
While some of the arguments Hume made were, loosely speaking, floating around in his day, it hardly goes to say that his particular argument in "Of Miracles" was made by anyone else. Earman shows where John Locke had some influence on Hume, but merely suggests some others may also have influenced him, without providing any direct evidence. Hume doesn't really say he came up with his argument, anyway. He says he "discovered" it, even though it's clear he's taking ownership of it. The way a particular argument is expressed can make that argument more powerful. Sometimes it matters who makes that argument. People were forced to pay attention to Hume, known to "the wise and learned" as a great philosopher and a great historian. For he had became widely known for his massive 6 volumes series on The History of England, published from 1754 to 1762. When readers of Hume's history learned he ridiculed believers for believing in the impossible, it was his arrogance and his ridicule that most likely thrust what he argued into the spotlight like nothing else, and it still does.
B) No one likes an arrogant person. No one likes to be ridiculed for what they think either. That's what Hume did, and it got the attention of the philosophical elites. Hume:
I flatter myself, that I have discovered an argument...which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion, and consequently, will be useful as long as the world endures.What if Hume didn't say this? What if he played nice with believers? What if he had toned down his rhetoric? What we know is that no one likes to be taunted, belittled, or called ignorant, or delusional. Yet this is what Hume did. Doing so brings believers out of their caves to debate, and debate Hume they have. It's as if what Hume said had a self-fulfilling effect to it. I don't see anything wrong with ridicule so long as it stays within some reasonable parameters. Link [see also the tag at the end].
3) I like taking on challenges. Doing so makes me think deeper and work harder than I would otherwise. So why not try?
A) If it's worth doing it's worth doing badly.
B) Christians disparage Hume's name, arguments, and legacy, so they need some pushback from someone like me. Just as I won't cave into their irrational and unevidenced beliefs, I won't cave into their attempts to disparage the name of Hume. I might be wrong, but I think he deserves defending.
C) Christians talk about steelmanning arguments nowadays. It's akin to the "Principle of Charity" but goes beyond it. It not only tries to avoid the fallacy of the strawman, it goes further by beefing up the arguments of others whom we disagree. Since no one disagrees with doing this in principle, that's what I'm doing with regard to David Hume. Hume was a very deep thinker. If it appears he made an easy mistake, or simple error in wording, then it's quite obvious that by steelmanning him we can find a reasonable sense to what he said.
D) In defending Hume I'll kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. I'm advancing good arguments and highlighting Hume's towering figure over us at the same time. Doing both will accomplish both goals at the same time. If I succeed then it will do all fairminded people a service. If I fail, then any arguments I advance that are good will last.
No comments:
Post a Comment