Hume and Ehrman

[~M~]

Craig accused Ehrman of adopting a Humean stance on miracles but Ehrman rejects this accusation. A quick glance tells me that Craig is correct. Am i missing something?


The Debate
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf

[Toto]

Did you miss this?

Bill claims that the best explanation of his four facts is that there is a miracle that happened. Hume, in fact, was not talking about what I’m talking about. Hume was talking about the possibility of whether miracle happens. I’m not talking about whether miracle can happen. I don’t accept Hume’s argument that miracles can’t happen. I’m asking, suppose miracles do happen, can historians demonstrate it? No, they can’t demonstrate it. If Bill wants to flash up his mathematical possibilities again, then I suggest that he plug in other historical options—for example, the one that I’ve already laid out that he’s ignored, that possibly two of Jesus’ family members stole the body and that they were killed and thrown into a common tomb. It probably didn’t happen, but it’s more plausible than the explanation that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Craig then seems to have backpedaled to accusing Ehrman of using a "Humian"-type argument.

[Antiplastic]

Craig says that Hume argued that we can never say that miracles are likely, and Ehrman says that Hume argued that miracles never occur. Lucky for Hume that he never argued either of those things. Unlucky for the audience that night that neither of their debaters were capable of comprehending a very straightforward philosophical argument and representing it honestly.

[~M~]

Did you miss this?



Craig then seems to have backpedaled to accusing Ehrman of using a "Humian"-type argument.



Hume was not talking about whether or not miracles are possible.

[~M~]

Craig says that Hume argued that we can never say that miracles are likely.

where did craig say that?

[punkforchrist]

I’m asking, suppose miracles do happen, can historians demonstrate it? No, they can’t demonstrate it.

I think this was the main thing that Craig contests. Must history be judged from a Naturalistic perspective? It seems that whatever one presupposes, it is necessary to cross disciplines (in this instance, history and philosophy).

[Antiplastic]

where did craig say that?

Dr. Ehrman maintains that we can never say that a miracle like the resurrection probably occurred because miracles by their very nature are inherently improbable. Now despite what he said, this argument is nothing new. It was already propounded in the 18th century by David Hume in his essay “Of Miracles.” Dr. Ehrman’s argument is just a warmed-over version of Hume’s reasoning.

Sorry kids. Craig doesnt know what he's talking about (or does, and is being dishonest about it.)

[~M~]

Dr. Ehrman maintains that we can never say that a miracle like the resurrection probably occurred because miracles by their very nature are inherently improbable. Now despite what he said, this argument is nothing new. It was already propounded in the 18th century by David Hume in his essay “Of Miracles.” Dr. Ehrman’s argument is just a warmed-over version of Hume’s reasoning.

Sorry kids. Craig doesnt know what he's talking about (or does, and is being dishonest about it.)

great. so, "kid", what do you interpret Hume as saying?

[Dr. Retard]

Hume never says that miracles are impossible. He never even discusses what you should think if you see a miracle yourself. He talks about testimony concerning miracles. The sort of testimony that historians deal with. Hume himself was an historian.

So it looks like Ehrman is wrong. Depending on how you take "miracles by their very nature are inherently improbable", it looks like Craig is right.

A while back, I wrote a summary of Hume on miracles. I think it's accurate. You can find it here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3447628#post3447628).

[cognac]

Interestingly, Craig claims Hume has been debunked by John Earman in "Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles"

This Professor Earman is not a Christian; in fact, he’s an agnostic. He doesn’t even believe God exists. Nevertheless, you see what he thinks of Hume’s argument: it’s not merely a failure, it is an abject failure. That is to say, it is demonstrably, irremediably, hopelessly fallacious.

The book, which I haven't read, is described this way at amazon:

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 18th 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.

[Canard DuJour]

Hume never says that miracles are impossible. [...] So it looks like Ehrman is wrong.
To err is human. To Hume is Ehrman

[~M~]

Hume never says that miracles are impossible. He never even discusses what you should think if you see a miracle yourself. He talks about testimony concerning miracles. The sort of testimony that historians deal with. Hume himself was an historian.

So it looks like Ehrman is wrong. Depending on how you take "miracles by their very nature are inherently improbable", it looks like Craig is right.

A while back, I wrote a summary of Hume on miracles. I think it's accurate. You can find it here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3447628#post3447628).

These are my thoughts too.

[~M~]

So, like, am i correct or what?

[Dr. Retard]

John Earman's critique rests on a pretty bad misreading of Hume. IIRC, he confuses 'proof' with 'demonstration' and has Hume assigning a probability of 1 to every law of nature. There are several responses to Earman calling him out on this.

[John Page]

To err is human. To Hume is Ehrman
:notworthy: