Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles [Paperback]

John Earman (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: November 23, 2000 | ISBN-10: 0195127382 | ISBN-13: 978-0195127386

This vital study offers a new interpretation of Hume's famous "Of Miracles," which notoriously argues against the possibility of miracles. By situating Hume's popular argument in the context of the eighteenth-century debate on miracles, Earman shows Hume's argument to be largely unoriginal and chiefly without merit where it is original. Yet Earman constructively conceives how progress can be made on the issues that Hume's essay so provocatively posed about the ability of eyewitness testimony to establish the credibility of marvelous and miraculous events.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"Unlike so many who have gone before, Earman does not merely intend to expose Hume's fallacies. His aim is to sketch an epistemology that allows for both the possibility of miracles and a healthy skepticism toward miracle claims--twin goals that many theists also embrace. As a whole, this is a very good book."--Philosophia Christi

"[the] argument itself is very clear, very cogent, and very apposite to present debates."--Mind

About the Author

John Earman is at University of Pittsburgh.

Product Details

• Paperback: 232 pages
• Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA (November 23, 2000)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0195127382
• ISBN-13: 978-0195127386
• Product Dimensions: 9.3 x 6.1 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 12.6 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (7 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #457,349 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

29 of 37 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent Application of Probability Theory, June 5, 2006

By 

John DePoe (Iowa City, Iowa USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles (Paperback)

John Earman has written a wonderful book that shows the value of using the precision of probability theory to bring clarity to a murky issue. Long have certain philosophers marvelled at David Hume's essay, "On Miracles," supposing it to be an original and creative refutation of believing in miracles. Earman shows that Hume's arguments are neither original nor sound at establishing his pessimistic outlook on miracles. Moreover, using probability calculus, Earman is able to establish clearly that Hume's argument is a failure. In fact, Earman shows that many of Hume's contemporaries were familiar with probabilistic reasoning and were able to demonstrate Hume was wrong within in his own lifetime. So, not only was Hume wrong, but his failure cannot be attributed to the lack of development of inductive reasoning in his time. Earman works hard trying to understand what exactly Hume meant by examining Hume's personal letters and the developments of Hume's essay as it was published in various editions. After several attempts to read Hume charitably, Earman finds Hume's application of probabilistic reasoning is muddled and confused, at best. Furthermore, Earman shows that if Hume was right, this would spell disaster for inductive reasoning that confirms (or disconfirms) scientific reasoning. Those who endorse Hume's argument against miracles are supporting a line of reasoning that would eqully undermine science.

Earman's book is commendable for a number of reasons. First, it is a first-rate work in philosophy that is written clearly. Earman's rigor coupled with his readable prose make for a rewarding study. Second, this book makes significant contribution to Humean scholarship where Earman convincingly argues for various ways to interpret Hume, which he substantiates with cross-referencing the work of Hume and his interaction with his contemporaries. Third, the book is a powerful lesson in probability theory (especially Bayesianism). Some background in probabilistic reasoning may be needed to understand parts of the book, but even a cursory knowledge of probability theory will be nourished by Earman's work. Fourth, this book puts forward some substantial theories relevant to philosophy of religion, especially the nature of miracles. Fifth, the second half of the book is filled with important sources on the 18th century deist controversy, which are invaluable to studying probability and confirmation of miraculous events by eyewitness testimony. For those who find these issues to be important and wish to get a better handle on how to think clearly through these issues, this book will be a welcome piece of scholarship.

42 of 55 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars A Very Badly Needed Book, December 18, 2001

By 

Prof. Dr John Warwick Montgomery (London, Eng... - See all my reviews

This review is from: Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles (Paperback)

Introductory philosophy courses in college or university invariably include Hume's argument against miracles in the philosophy of religion unit to convince students that one cannot use evidence of miracles (such as the resurrection of Christ) to argue for metaphysical truths. Of course, Hume's argument SHOULD be included in the course--but in the LOGIC section as an archetypal piece of bad reasoning. Finally, a professional philosopher--who is by no means a Christian believer--has done a thoroughgoing scholarly critique of Hume's argument, showing beyond all question that the argument is perfectly circular: Hume, with a pre-Einsteinian, 18th century mindset, assumes that "uniform experience" exists against miracles and concludes--surprise, surprise--that no evidence can ever be effectively marshalled to prove that a miracle has really occurred. This book should be read by every naive philosophical rationalist. It will open epistemological doors to a new appreciation of the potential of miracle arguments as a prime support to claims for a genuine, historical incarnation.

18 of 25 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Ouch! Earman is Wrong about Hume., June 24, 2009

By 

Steve Baughman (san francisco) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles (Paperback)

Earman attributes to Hume the view that "the probabibility of a miracle is flatly zero." (p. 23.) This is a serious misreading of Hume. As any undergraduate philosophy student knows, Hume would never say that the probability of ANY matter of experience is "flatly zero." Hume's most notorious trait was his epistemic fallibilism, which arose from his skepticism about induction. Sadly, Earman is so bothered by some of Hume's strong anti-miracle language that he fails to view these passages in the context of Hume's most central claims.

Before one gets overly taken with Dr. Earman, I would suggest reading Robert Fogelin's "A Defense of Hume on Miracles", a short book that demolishes Earman's claims about Hume.