Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
PHILOSOPHY: THEME 2 - RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE (PART TWO) - Coggle Diagram
PHILOSOPHY: THEME 2 - RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE (PART TWO)
DEFINITIONS
HUME AND SWINBURNE
HUME
sceptic of miracles; miracles are violations of nature by a divine being
believes there is no credible/ valid testimonies for miracles. claims come from uneducated and unreasonable people who can lie/ fabricate experiences
believes it'd be wiser to reject claims rather than accept with no evidence
people could make up experiences to get others to join their faith
hume brings up the fact of existence of several religions, all claiming to be correct while claiming others are wrong, saying they cancel each other out and weakening their credibility
SWINBURNE
defends miracles by arguing that even though we don't have same beliefs as claimant, it doesn't make their claims any less credible
principle of credulity
- we should believe things as they seem unless proven otherwise
principle of testimony
- we should trust what other people claim unless we have valid doubts
also says even though events described can have characteristics beyond human understanding doesn't make it impossible to happen
miracles can violate nature's laws impossibly, but doesn't make its occurrence invalid
swinburne says laws of nature can always change, like with scientific theories when new evidence surfaces, so laws have to be revised; miracles can still be somewhat in alignment w/ nature
DIFFERENCES
hume completely rejects the nature of miracles and their testimonies, but swinburne does believe in them and sees how they can still make sense in the laws of nature
swinburne recognises the significance a miracle can have to an individual, saying they can reveal something about god's nature or god's command in times of uncertainty or vulnerability
hume, however, believes there has to be specific conditions for something to be considered a miracle, otherwise it simply can't be classified a miracle
EVALUATION
swinburne is more reasonable with his approach to miracles. he's correct in saying that though generally they do violate nature's laws, it's their significance to the individual that matters more
hume's perspective of miracle claims coming from the uneducated/ rural people would be considered discriminatory; it's not only these people that experience them; major religious leaders/ figures have too
we could argue that in the sense of not having enough witnesses, however, hume would be correct; the nature of the claim of a miracle is very subjective and has questionable validity