Overview

We are going to start by picking up where we left off last time, with the second part of Hume’s chapter on miracles.

Second, I want to discuss a point that was raised last time, namely, that Hume’s arguments seem to show that it would be irrational to accept new scientific results. To illustrate the point, I made a handout about a famous experiment that produced a surprising result and overturned a widely accepted theory about atoms.

Finally, we will discuss Lewis’s criticisms of Hume’s argument.

Lewis’s criticisms of Hume’s argument

It seems to me that Lewis makes three points.

1. Hume is arguing in a circle when he says that there is “uniform experience” against miracles. The experience is uniform only if no one has ever experienced a miracle, but that is what Hume is trying to prove and so he cannot use it as a premise in his argument. (Lewis 2001, 162)

2. Hume is assuming the uniformity of nature in order to rule out the possibility of miracles occurring. But Hume is the one who argued that we do not have any reason for believing in the uniformity of nature. (Lewis 2001, 163–65)

3. Our faith in the uniformity of nature can be vindicated, but only if we assume that there is a God who shares our distaste for chaos and has the power to enforce uniformity. But such a God would also have the ability to produce miracles. (Lewis 2001, 166–70)