Hume and Wiles on Miracles

Overview

Recall questions on the standpoint each takes, Hume's grounds for rejecting miracles and why Wiles holds that God would not intervene.

What you need to know

Answer each one before you reveal it.

Questions from this subtopic

Each one with the model answer underneath.

1. 1

   From what standpoint does Hume approach the question of miracles, and how does this differ from Wiles's approach?

   Model answer

   Hume approaches miracles from an epistemological standpoint, questioning whether we can ever have sufficient evidence to believe a miracle occurred. Wiles approaches from a theological standpoint, questioning whether God would act through miracles given divine nature and consistency.

2. 2

   How does Hume define a miracle, and what consequence does this definition have for their probability?

   Model answer

   Hume defines a miracle as a violation of natural law, which makes miracles inherently improbable.

3. 3

   While Wiles accepts the traditional definition of miracles, why does he argue God would not perform them?

   Model answer

   Wiles argues God would not intervene in this way due to the problem of divine arbitrariness.

4. 4

   What is the basis of Hume's rejection of miracles?

   Model answer

   Hume's rejection is based on the weight of evidence and testimony being insufficient to overcome the established regularity of natural laws.

5. 5

   What is the basis of Wiles's rejection of miracles?

   Model answer

   Wiles's rejection is based on the moral problem of a God who selectively intervenes.

6. 6

   Both Hume and Wiles conclude that miracle claims should not be accepted. What different reasons do they give for this shared conclusion?

   Model answer

   Hume argues that evidence can never be strong enough to justify belief in a miracle. Wiles argues that an interventionist God would be morally problematic.

Other ways to work this

The same content, four other ways.

What is inside Levo

Six ways to work the same material.