Abstract

While inquiring into the acceptability of witnessing a purported miracle, Hume formulates a simple criterion: S is credible in purporting M to the extent that the probability of S’s lying is weaker than the probability of M’s not having happened. Nevertheless, applying the criterion reveals to be very uneasy. It puts Hume himself in an awkward position, as regards his own account of laws of nature. Experience, that was supposed to be open to every non-contradictory event, suddently turns out to be “solid an unalterable”. Moreover, Hume is suggesting two definitions of miracle, but employs the one which precludes supernatural intervention. Hume is assessing the probability of miracle without considering the reasons a deity would have to produce them, and on which frequency. Clearly, there is a prejudicial refusal to accept.