"Do you believe in miracles?" This is the question David Hume attempts to answer in section X of his book, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Throughout this section, the general theme could be summarized by saying that people do not have enough reason to believe in miracles. In addition, Hume reveals that miracles should certainly not be the foundation for religions. Section X describes the thought process Hume used to come to these conclusions. I agree with Hume's main arguments; however, there are some little points that I must disagree with because he seems to put too much certainty in the laws of nature. In the following essay, I will explain Hume's reasoning for his conclusion, consider opposite opinions by outside sources, and give reasoning for my opinion that Hume is both right and wrong.
.
Before looking into and understanding Hume's reasoning for rejecting miracles, it is best to have some general background of some of Hume's philosophies. First of all, Hume tends to put his faith into probability over any other sources of reasoning. Therefore, Hume would say that something is "true" if it is probable, and is "false" if it is improbable. Hume's faith in probability is addressed in section VI; however, it also plays an important role in the debate in section VII concerning necessary connection. In section VII, Hume declares necessary connection to be unfavorable when compared to probability. In other words, probability is what allows humans to know what resulting action is about to occur. For example, when paper comes in contact with a flame, people already know for a fact that the paper is going to burn. This certainty does not result from feeling some power of causation or necessary connection, but comes instead from a calculation of probability based on experience. Furthermore, when contemplating the validity of a miracle, the witness and teller of the miracle is the primary concern according to Hume.