Hume, Holism, and Miracles (Cornell Studies in the Philosophy of Religion) [Hardcover]

David Johnson (Author)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 080143663X | ISBN-13: 978-0801436635 | Publication Date: December 1999

David Johnson seeks to overthrow one of the widely accepted tenets of Anglo-American philosophy--that of the success of the Humean case against the rational credibility of reports of miracles. In a manner unattempted in any other single work, he meticulously examines all the main variants of Humean reasoning on the topic of miracles: Hume's own argument and its reconstructions by John Stuart Mill, J. L. Mackie, Antony Flew, Jordan Howard Sobel, and others.

Hume's view, set forth in his essay "Of Miracles," has been widely thought to be correct. Johnson reviews Hume's thesis with clarity and elegance and considers the arguments of some of the most prominent defenders of Hume's case against miracles. According to Johnson, the Humean argument on this topic is entirely without merit, its purported cogency being simply a philosophical myth.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 106 pages
• Publisher: Cornell Univ Pr (December 1999)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 080143663X
• ISBN-13: 978-0801436635
• Product Dimensions: 9.4 x 6.4 x 0.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 12.8 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,051,408 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

8 of 10 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Hume's Miracle of Rhetoric, January 12, 2003

By 

Allen Stairs (Takoma Park, MD United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Hume, Holism, and Miracles (Cornell Studies in the Philosophy of Religion) (Hardcover)

Johnson's bottom line is that insofar as Hume's argument against miracles is persuasive, it's a triumph of rhetoric over reason. What's surprising, in Johnson's view, is just how wide the triumph has been. Nonetheless, Johnson argues convincingly, when Hume and his followers argue that no testimony could ever establish a miracle, they invariably end up begging one question or another. For example, Flew argues that in interpreting the "detritus of the past" -- including reports of miracles -- the "critical historian" must always give priority to the stock of natural laws we take ourselves to have established. The upshot is supposed to be that in any contest between science and history, history is bound to lose. But as Johhson points out, the experimental reports underlying our beliefs about the laws of nature are themselves part of this "detritus of the past." That means our belief in laws of nature depends on our belief that certain historical events have actually occurred -- a belief based on testimony.

Johnson himself accepts that various biblical miracles actually occurred, but one need not be a believer to take his point. And his point is that if we are allowed to take all our knowledge into account (that's the bit about holism), it would be very strange if a purely philosophical argument could show that NO testimony could possibly make it reasonable to believe in a miracle.

When you think about it, this is a rather modest conclusion. It's similar to the conclusion that John Earman arrives at in _Hume's Abject Failure_, though Earman's issues and arguments are more technical. Indeed, one is inclined to apply Hume's own slogan and say that a those who accept the Humean view ought to be conscious of a continuing miracle in their own persons, persuading them to accept something contrary to philosophical good sense, if not to custom and experience.

3 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A masterful critique of Hume's argument against miracles and religious testimony, July 6, 2009

By 

M. Young (Baltimore, MD) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Hume, Holism, and Miracles (Cornell Studies in the Philosophy of Religion) (Hardcover)

In this masterful work, David Johnson, philosopher, logician and pedagogue par excellence delivers a coup de grace to Hume's well known argument against miracles and religious testimony. This book offers invaluable insights into the philosophy of religion, philosophy of testimony, probability theory and beyond. A must read for any serious student of philosophy. Johnson's clarity and meticulousness in philosophical method and writing is rare in todays philosophical arena, an arena characterized by the very same ambiguous rhetoric devoid of cogent logic which led David Hume to the abject failures elucidated in this expert analysis.

2 of 9 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Completely unconvincing, December 23, 2009

By 

Michael A. Scarpitti (Columbus, Ohio USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Hume, Holism, and Miracles (Cornell Studies in the Philosophy of Religion) (Hardcover)

The author claims that Hume's arguments in his discussion of miracles are circular. I find no merit in them author's claim whatsoever. It is utterly unconvincing. All Hume claimed was that hearsay regarding a miracle's occurrence is weaker evidence than our collective and universal experience to the contrary. His second point is that weaker evidence cannot overthrow stronger.

Hume claims that, given what we know about the world, people don't come back from the dead. Hearsay evidence of a claim to the contrary is weaker evidence than the collective and universal experience of mankind, that people don't come back from the dead. It seems awfully risky to put people to death if they're just going to get right back up after a couple days and come after you. "Dead men tell no tales" is not an old maxim without good reason. The debate over capital punishment would seem somehow less urgent if we could have resurrections at will. Yet Johnson somehow sees Hume's argument as "circular". Hmmmmm. Really? Now how is that again, Mr Johnson? Circular? The universal and collective experience of mankind is that dead is dead. Hearsay to the contrary is meaningless in the face of such. Dracula and zombie undead are fictional, and they are entertaining fictions, but fictions they remain.