Humean Skepticism - An Enemy to Religious Skeptics

[Uber Genius]

Hume, An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding X, i, 86

"Upon the whole, then, it appears that no testimony for any kind of miracle has ever amounted to a probability, much less to a proof; and that even if it did amount to a proof it would be opposed by another proof derived from the very nature of the fact it is trying to establish.

Hume concludes, "...so we may accept it as a maxim that no human testimony can have such force as to prove a miracle, and make it a legitimate foundation for any such system of religion."

We know miracles are impossible therefore anyone who is making a report of a miracle is unreliable.

Therefore all reports of miracles are unreliable.

Hume discounts witnesses that report data that don't comport with the existing data. Ignoring his own "Problem of induction," he states all swans ever seen in the last several centuries are white. Any sailor, coming from say Australia, with a report of a Black swan stands in opposition to those data and must be giving an unreliable report. This deleted data that would have allow the naturalist to truly state, "Swans can be black or white in coloring," as opposed to Hume's method which forces naturalists to misrepresent the data.

Empiricists recognized that Hume's ham-handed attempt at producing skeptics of miracles and other unaccounted phenomena, were not just circular but destroyed the very thing that made the scientific method so strong! Namely, the best explanation for the data must change over time to account for new data.

Because he preceded Bayes by a few years, Hume can be forgiven his ignorance of same. What Bayes Theorem states is that we can compare the probability of M given the evidence and background information [Pr(M|E&B)] with the probability of not-M given the evidence and background information [Pr(not-M|E&B)]:

Pr(R|E&B)
------------------------
Pr(not-R|E&B)



So the question Hume should have been asking (given Bayes), is, "What are the chances of witnesses, and experts (doctors), reporting miracles knowing that they would be openly mocked as liars, charlatans and fools." This applies even more significantly with testimonies of Jesus' resurrection. Since testimonies often resulted in death, not just being outcast.

So what is the probability that sailors told the truth about seeing black swans in Australia/ the probability of other explications of their reports of seeing black swans (e.g. Mass hallucinations, or a black swan conspiracy)

Within a few years George Campbell, A dissertation on miracles, p. 31-32, London: T. Tegg, 1824

"He [Hume] rests his case against belief in miracles upon the claim that laws of nature are supported by exceptionless testimony, but testimony can only be accounted exceptionless if we discount the occurrence of miracles."

Every major step forward in science was met with both legitimate skepticism and Humean skepticism. Max Planck's Quantum Mechanics, Einstein's special, and general theories of relativity, were rejected by most top scientist of their day due to Humean reasoning rather than a close examination of the data.

Someone tell me the irony in Hume's circular reasoning.

Please comment on similar problems with Hume's concepts of space, time, external objects, personal identity over time, lack of free will, and his view that causation in not found in the external world.

Non-theists, by all means join the conversation and let us know if you share my skepticism of Hume's method. If not, not why not?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hume, An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding X, i, 86

"Upon the whole, then, it appears that no testimony for any kind of miracle has ever amounted to a probability, much less to a proof; and that even if it did amount to a proof it would be opposed by another proof derived from the very nature of the fact it is trying to establish.

Hume concludes, "...so we may accept it as a maxim that no human testimony can have such force as to prove a miracle, and make it a legitimate foundation for any such system of religion."

We know miracles are impossible therefore anyone who is making a report of a miracle is unreliable.

Therefore all reports of miracles are unreliable.

Hume discounts witnesses that report data that don't comport with the existing data. Ignoring his own "Problem of induction," he states all swans ever seen in the last several centuries are white. Any sailor, coming from say Australia, with a report of a Black swan stands in opposition to those data and must be giving an unreliable report. This deleted data that would have allow the naturalist to truly state, "Swans can be black or white in coloring," as opposed to Hume's method which forces naturalists to misrepresent the data.

Empiricists recognized that Hume's ham-handed attempt at producing skeptics of miracles and other unaccounted phenomena, were not just circular but destroyed the very thing that made the scientific method so strong! Namely, the best explanation for the data must change over time to account for new data.

Because he preceded Bayes by a few years, Hume can be forgiven his ignorance of same. What Bayes Theorem states is that we can compare the probability of M given the evidence and background information [Pr(M|E&B)] with the probability of not-M given the evidence and background information [Pr(not-M|E&B)]:

Pr(R|E&B)
------------------------
Pr(not-R|E&B)



So the question Hume should have been asking (given Bayes), is, "What are the chances of witnesses, and experts (doctors), reporting miracles knowing that they would be openly mocked as liars, charlatans and fools." This applies even more significantly with testimonies of Jesus' resurrection. Since testimonies often resulted in death, not just being outcast.

So what is the probability that sailors told the truth about seeing black swans in Australia/ the probability of other explications of their reports of seeing black swans (e.g. Mass hallucinations, or a black swan conspiracy)

Within a few years George Campbell, A dissertation on miracles, p. 31-32, London: T. Tegg, 1824

"He [Hume] rests his case against belief in miracles upon the claim that laws of nature are supported by exceptionless testimony, but testimony can only be accounted exceptionless if we discount the occurrence of miracles."

Every major step forward in science was met with both legitimate skepticism and Humean skepticism. Max Planck's Quantum Mechanics, Einstein's special, and general theories of relativity, were rejected by most top scientist of their day due to Humean reasoning rather than a close examination of the data.

Someone tell me the irony in Hume's circular reasoning.

Please comment on similar problems with Hume's concepts of space, time, external objects, personal identity over time, lack of free will, and his view that causation in not found in the external world.

Non-theists, by all means join the conversation and let us know if you share my skepticism of Hume's method. If not, not why not?

Uber,

It appears your thread here has somehow missed its circulation potential. I suppose there are various reasons why, but I'm going to ponder a guess as to why:

Being that this is a "Christian Apologetics" forum, many of the Skeptics/Atheists on CF aren't here to talk about Philosophy Proper, but to deride the Bible and catalyze disbelief among Christians. And besides, all this Humean talk about skepticism might lead to further considerations which dissuade belief not only in religion, but also in one's general confidence of the fundamental ideas one holds, even those of an atheist. And who would want that?

Another possibility is that your post is a bit convoluted and treads some philosophical ground that most people don't walk. Sometimes, less is more, particularly for a discussion in a setting like a public forum.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Uber Genius]

Uber,

It appears your thread here has somehow missed its circulation potential. I suppose there are various reasons why, but I'm going to ponder a guess as to why:

Being that this is a "Christian Apologetics" forum, many of the Skeptics/Atheists on CF aren't here to talk about Philosophy Proper
, but to deride the Bible and catalyze disbelief among Christians.

Agreed. Not assumed but certainly proven out on this forum. Other forums, occasioned by atheists who are both college graduates and have benefited from a philsophy course or two are much more responsive.

Sometimes, less is more, particularly for a discussion in a setting like a public forum.

My hope was to get Christians to engage with questions as well. I do workshops to pastoral staff on these topics and find Christians who really want to develop their apologetic skills.

Unfortunately, due to Christian culture in our churches, anti-intellectualism reigns supreme. The average apologist is more likely to be familiar with names of their favorite football team's coaching staff than the basic attacks and defenses of theism.

I have been successful on other sites with similar posts but think this site may be closer to twitter than than "The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology."

I have numerous posts that are successful but thought I would plumb the depths of the waters out here. "Puddle...Absolutely No Diving at Any Time," was then result.

Such is our vapid culture both Christian and atheist. But to your point, one most know thy audience. I mistakenly thought that since it was the apologetics forum Would have received a different result.

 

[Greg J.]

We know miracles are impossible

I lost interest when I got to this part. His logic is founded upon the premise that he knows what every sentient being who has ever lived has (not) experienced, as well as the fact that everyone knows and understands what they have experienced. Well, I think we can get some common agreement that we don't all understand everything we experience.

 

[Uber Genius]

I lost interest when I got to this part. His logic is founded upon the premise that he knows what every sentient being who has ever lived has (not) experienced, as well as the fact that everyone knows and understands what they have experienced. Well, I think we can get some common agreement that we don't all understand everything we experience.

That is certainly a faulty assumption that theists and non-theists make.

Hat is central to engaging people with different beliefs. Good point.

But don't "Lose interest," as the circularity and the fact that Hume has to explain why doctors and sick or injured people are "claiming" to be healed or witness same falsely.

That is the interesting part Christian should focus on.

Josh McDowell was very successful pointing out the fact that if Christ didn't miraculously raise from the dead the Apostles died martyrs deaths for something they knew was a lie.

These lines of argument plant diamond pointers in non-theists minds that stay their for years and can be worked on by the HS.

 

[Greg J.]

But don't "Lose interest,"

Well, the unstated additional reason was that I thought the thread was leaning toward what philosophers thought, of which I know little.

 

[Uber Genius]

Well, the unstated additional reason was that I thought the thread was leaning toward what philosophers thought, of which I know little.

Fair enough, but since Hume is at the center of false claims about religions beliefs and most quoted by skeptics, I was hoping to generate interest in Hume at least.

Your point on differing experience stands. Thx.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Fair enough, but since Hume is at the center of false claims about religions beliefs and most quoted by skeptics, I was hoping to generate interest in Hume at least.

Your point on differing experience stands. Thx.

Uber, Hume is also at the center of the philosophy of science. It's always good to remind atheists of Hume's *ahem*...epistemic contributions in that area. Not that they'll listen, but it's always fun to bring these things up.

[Edit: I see you already mentioned something to that effect in your OP. My bad!]

 

[Uber Genius]

Uber, Hume is also at the center of the philosophy of science. It's always good to remind atheists of Hume's *ahem*...epistemic contributions in that area. Not that they'll listen, but it's always fun to bring these things up.

Yes. The problem of induction in the black swan report is a portion of Hume's contribution to PoS. Christians have added a significantly larger portion to the scientific method, but Hume's skepticism and his problem of induction weren't applied rigorously to the newly devised empiricism of Scotland. Go figure, yet another inconsistency from Hume.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hume, An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding X, i, 86

"Upon the whole, then, it appears that no testimony for any kind of miracle has ever amounted to a probability, much less to a proof; and that even if it did amount to a proof it would be opposed by another proof derived from the very nature of the fact it is trying to establish.

Hume concludes, "...so we may accept it as a maxim that no human testimony can have such force as to prove a miracle, and make it a legitimate foundation for any such system of religion."

We know miracles are impossible therefore anyone who is making a report of a miracle is unreliable.

Therefore all reports of miracles are unreliable.

Hume discounts witnesses that report data that don't comport with the existing data. Ignoring his own "Problem of induction," he states all swans ever seen in the last several centuries are white. Any sailor, coming from say Australia, with a report of a Black swan stands in opposition to those data and must be giving an unreliable report. This deleted data that would have allow the naturalist to truly state, "Swans can be black or white in coloring," as opposed to Hume's method which forces naturalists to misrepresent the data.

Empiricists recognized that Hume's ham-handed attempt at producing skeptics of miracles and other unaccounted phenomena, were not just circular but destroyed the very thing that made the scientific method so strong! Namely, the best explanation for the data must change over time to account for new data.

Because he preceded Bayes by a few years, Hume can be forgiven his ignorance of same. What Bayes Theorem states is that we can compare the probability of M given the evidence and background information [Pr(M|E&B)] with the probability of not-M given the evidence and background information [Pr(not-M|E&B)]:

Pr(R|E&B)
------------------------
Pr(not-R|E&B)



So the question Hume should have been asking (given Bayes), is, "What are the chances of witnesses, and experts (doctors), reporting miracles knowing that they would be openly mocked as liars, charlatans and fools." This applies even more significantly with testimonies of Jesus' resurrection. Since testimonies often resulted in death, not just being outcast.

So what is the probability that sailors told the truth about seeing black swans in Australia/ the probability of other explications of their reports of seeing black swans (e.g. Mass hallucinations, or a black swan conspiracy)

Within a few years George Campbell, A dissertation on miracles, p. 31-32, London: T. Tegg, 1824

"He [Hume] rests his case against belief in miracles upon the claim that laws of nature are supported by exceptionless testimony, but testimony can only be accounted exceptionless if we discount the occurrence of miracles."

Every major step forward in science was met with both legitimate skepticism and Humean skepticism. Max Planck's Quantum Mechanics, Einstein's special, and general theories of relativity, were rejected by most top scientist of their day due to Humean reasoning rather than a close examination of the data.

Someone tell me the irony in Hume's circular reasoning.

Please comment on similar problems with Hume's concepts of space, time, external objects, personal identity over time, lack of free will, and his view that causation in not found in the external world.

Non-theists, by all means join the conversation and let us know if you share my skepticism of Hume's method. If not, not why not?

Yes, I share some of your skepticism about Hume's skepticism. I'm just not sure New-atheists really care about Hume all that much. They seem to place their eggs in another basket now, for the most part.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hume, An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding X, i, 86

"Upon the whole, then, it appears that no testimony for any kind of miracle has ever amounted to a probability, much less to a proof; and that even if it did amount to a proof it would be opposed by another proof derived from the very nature of the fact it is trying to establish.

Hume concludes, "...so we may accept it as a maxim that no human testimony can have such force as to prove a miracle, and make it a legitimate foundation for any such system of religion."

We know miracles are impossible therefore anyone who is making a report of a miracle is unreliable.

Therefore all reports of miracles are unreliable.

Hume discounts witnesses that report data that don't comport with the existing data. Ignoring his own "Problem of induction," he states all swans ever seen in the last several centuries are white. Any sailor, coming from say Australia, with a report of a Black swan stands in opposition to those data and must be giving an unreliable report. This deleted data that would have allow the naturalist to truly state, "Swans can be black or white in coloring," as opposed to Hume's method which forces naturalists to misrepresent the data.

Empiricists recognized that Hume's ham-handed attempt at producing skeptics of miracles and other unaccounted phenomena, were not just circular but destroyed the very thing that made the scientific method so strong! Namely, the best explanation for the data must change over time to account for new data.

Because he preceded Bayes by a few years, Hume can be forgiven his ignorance of same. What Bayes Theorem states is that we can compare the probability of M given the evidence and background information [Pr(M|E&B)] with the probability of not-M given the evidence and background information [Pr(not-M|E&B)]:

Pr(R|E&B)
------------------------
Pr(not-R|E&B)



So the question Hume should have been asking (given Bayes), is, "What are the chances of witnesses, and experts (doctors), reporting miracles knowing that they would be openly mocked as liars, charlatans and fools." This applies even more significantly with testimonies of Jesus' resurrection. Since testimonies often resulted in death, not just being outcast.

So what is the probability that sailors told the truth about seeing black swans in Australia/ the probability of other explications of their reports of seeing black swans (e.g. Mass hallucinations, or a black swan conspiracy)

Within a few years George Campbell, A dissertation on miracles, p. 31-32, London: T. Tegg, 1824

"He [Hume] rests his case against belief in miracles upon the claim that laws of nature are supported by exceptionless testimony, but testimony can only be accounted exceptionless if we discount the occurrence of miracles."

Every major step forward in science was met with both legitimate skepticism and Humean skepticism. Max Planck's Quantum Mechanics, Einstein's special, and general theories of relativity, were rejected by most top scientist of their day due to Humean reasoning rather than a close examination of the data.

Someone tell me the irony in Hume's circular reasoning.

Please comment on similar problems with Hume's concepts of space, time, external objects, personal identity over time, lack of free will, and his view that causation in not found in the external world.

Non-theists, by all means join the conversation and let us know if you share my skepticism of Hume's method. If not, not why not?

Regarding Bayesian theory, apart from Hume, have you ever read Mark Norris Lance's article (1995), "Subjective Probability and Acceptance"? I just read it the other day, and although I'm still digesting it, I found his ideas about how "personal acceptance" has to be factored into the calculus when using Bayesian theory to be quite thought provoking. As I read the article, I came to the thought that Lance's idea may be useful if applied to Carrier's assertion that "Jesus did not exist."

I'm just wondering if you've come across this?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes. The problem of induction in the black swan report is a portion of Hume's contribution to PoS. Christians have added a significantly larger portion to the scientific method, but Hume's skepticism and his problem of induction weren't applied rigorously to the newly devised empiricism of Scotland. Go figure, yet another inconsistency from Hume.

However ... I do like the fact that Hume critiqued extreme levels of skepticism and opted for what he called "mitigated skepticism."

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

However ... I do like the fact that Hume critiqued extreme levels of skepticism and opted for what he called "mitigated skepticism."

Skepticism must be extreme or it merely becomes a form of self-affirmation of your own opinions. One should be equally skeptical of propositions you prefer as to those you don't. I have often seen arguments made by atheists on this forum who discount Christian concepts on the grounds of skepticism, but refuse to apply skepticism to their own propositions.
As such, I disagree thoroughly with Hume and agree more with Pyrrho in this manner when intellectually discussing a matter. I do not however consider Skepticism an absolute though.

 

[anonymous person]

Skepticism must be extreme or it merely becomes a form of self-affirmation of your own opinions. One should be equally skeptical of propositions you prefer as to those you don't. I have often seen arguments made by atheists on this forum who discount Christian concepts on the grounds of skepticism, but refuse to apply skepticism to their own propositions.
As such, I disagree thoroughly with Hume and agree more with Pyrrho in this manner when intellectually discussing a matter. I do not however consider Skepticism an absolute though.

I've noticed this too.

In addition, Hume seems to me to be representative of those who go to one of either two extremes. On one end you have those who want to deny a priori the miraculous, and on the other, you have those who want to attribute everything that happens as a miracle.

Both extremes seem to me to be hard to defend.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Hume, An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding X, i, 86 - snip - "We know miracles are impossible therefore anyone who is making a report of a miracle is unreliable."

This has been spotted prior, but I find it to be the basis or core of the error. Hume is beginning with his conclusion. To phrase it another way, his assumption is what he thinks he is proving. Anything countering his assumption is ignored as 'non-reliable', because only that which supports his assumption is reliable.

He may or may not have been aware of it. From what I've heard of Hume, he was honest in his writing and thinking. I've noted many of the deophobes who post here, stridently denying God, fall on the same stone; they begin with their conclusion and completely fail to understand what they're doing.

It is hard to deal with this sort of self-blindness. Those in this category have built such a wall around their reasoning they are nearly impervious to logic or even fact.

 

[Uber Genius]

Regarding Bayesian theory, apart from Hume, have you ever read Mark Norris Lance's article (1995), "Subjective Probability and Acceptance"? I just read it the other day, and although I'm still digesting it, I found his ideas about how "personal acceptance" has to be factored into the calculus when using Bayesian theory to be quite thought provoking. As I read the article, I came to the thought that Lance's idea may be useful if applied to Carrier's assertion that "Jesus did not exist."

I'm just wondering if you've come across this?

No, but I will find it and read it. My introduction to Bayes, was in grad school studying search algorithyms for artificial intelligence applications. Once I read Bayes, I realized the broad application to epistemic questions.

Then ran into a podcast in a doctrine class by William Lane Craig on Bayes. WLC's approach was the main source for my post.

 

[Uber Genius]

This has been spotted prior, but I find it to be the basis or core of the error. Hume is beginning with his conclusion. To phrase it another way, his assumption is what he thinks he is proving. Anything countering his assumption is ignored as 'non-reliable', because only that which supports his assumption is reliable.

He may or may not have been aware of it. From what I've heard of Hume, he was honest in his writing and thinking. I've noted many of the deophobes who post here, stridently denying God, fall on the same stone; they begin with their conclusion and completely fail to understand what they're doing.

It is hard to deal with this sort of self-blindness. Those in this category have built such a wall around their reasoning they are nearly impervious to logic or even fact.

Unfortunately, it is not just the skeptics that use circular arguments blindly. Many of our great theologians used these approaches (although logical fallacies didn't seem to be the centerpiece of rhetorical standards until the last century so perhaps I'm being anachronistic). In fact many of my fellow apologist do so as well. I have to re-read my posts to reduce my own uncharitable readings that lead to strawman arguments on my part.

As to Hume's honesty. I wouldn't want to weigh in, but would say he covers a lot of ground in his work, often just skimming the surface without examining all the possible presuppositions and implications. He also is a fan of the run-on sentence.

When working with my son, when he was in a class on Hume, we would chart these sentences in a diagram to determine the range of possible interpretions.

I don't want to make sweeping generalizations about Hume, but point out that some of his ideas in Enquiry were fallacious. And these are the most often quoted by skeptics and philosophy professors alike.

Each year my goal is to continue to eliminate my false beliefs and replace them with true ones (self-blindness). Occassionally I accomplish my goal.

 

[Uber Genius]

Skepticism must be extreme or it merely becomes a form of self-affirmation of your own opinions. One should be equally skeptical of propositions you prefer as to those you don't. I have often seen arguments made by atheists on this forum who discount Christian concepts on the grounds of skepticism, but refuse to apply skepticism to their own propositions.
As such, I disagree thoroughly with Hume and agree more with Pyrrho in this manner when intellectually discussing a matter. I do not however consider Skepticism an absolute though.

It seems we are all in the same epistemic boat here. We are limited in the type of justification we can give for certain sets of beliefs. Religious beliefs are justified differently then aesthetic beliefs, or historical beliefs, or scientific beliefs. We need to help others recognize different boundary conditions.

I'm not quite clear on extreme vs less than extreme skepticism. Skepticism has a concept in epistemology and that is how I'm using it.

Require a certain group if beliefs to be warranted could be termed "skeptical" by some. In that sense of the word, I'm a skeptic when it comes to claims about God.

But if one gives me conceptual reasons, and historical evidence, and experiential reasons, then they has pasted my skeptical bar. Now the thing about those data is that they all change over time. So I just follow the data. Perhaps I will write about that concept next.

 

[Uber Genius]

I've noticed this too.

In addition, Hume seems to me to be representative of those who go to one of either two extremes. On one end you have those who want to deny a priori the miraculous, and on the other, you have those who want to attribute everything that happens as a miracle.

Both extremes seem to me to be hard to defend.

Agree. There are a lot of equivocations in the religious epistemology area. Seems like we would do well to teach some basic philosophy in our churches as well as basic doctrine. But I'm not sure any would attend. Certainly not during football, basketball, or baseball seasons. Opps forgot Hockey...go Bluejackets!

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Unfortunately, it is not just the skeptics that use circular arguments blindly.

Duly noted; some time ago.

Many of our great theologians used these approaches...

Truthfully, I haven't studied many 'great theologians'. I've read much of C. S. Lewis, who typically started with dirt and built on it. And the Bible, which openly assumes God exists, since God is quoted many places.

In fact many of my fellow apologist do so as well.

Using the Bible to prove the Bible is 'weak' in my mind.

I have to re-read my posts to reduce my own uncharitable readings that lead to strawman arguments on my part.

I do my best to avoid circular argument. I probably don't always avoid such with total success. On the other hand, trying to deal with one who denies gravity leads to muddled thinking.

As to Hume's honesty. I wouldn't want to weigh in...

Since he's not here to defend himself, I won't make any grand statements about his honesty either. Pointing out errors is not an accusation of dishonesty.

I don't want to make sweeping generalizations about Hume, but point out that some of his ideas in Enquiry were fallacious.

I mentioned one; where he starts his argument by relying on his presumed conclusion. Another is his concept of "Experience" being the sole source of knowledge. The problem is, only his experience counts. Anyone else's experience - if different than his - is (was?) 'unreliable'.

Each year my goal is to continue to eliminate my false beliefs and replace them with true ones (self-blindness). Occassionally I accomplish my goal.

Good idea. In fact, God demands His followers do such. (We all have varying levels of success; the individual's success varies at times.)