From the above citation of Hume, miracles are said never to be adequately attested to. For him, such events are in terms of number next to nothing compared to the innumerable witnesses to the regularity of nature. Another factor concerns the intelligence and the cultural standard of the witnesses. Also to be considered is the reliability and doubtless integrity, which put suspicion of deception out of the question. Thus in the story of the alleged miracle in Egypt wrought by Emperor Vespasian, Hume is trying to show that, through many of the above conditions were satisfied, the evidence in its favour can only be regarded as an “exploded and idolatrous superstition.” Secondly, reports of prodigies need to be taken with a grain of salt, because of man’s natural and emotional inclination towards exotic things. He writes: The passion of surprise …show more content…
Hume’s point that as far as evidence is concerned; it is very improbable that any did occur. But this improbability fluctuates with the evidence, at times get very categorical. In fact considering certain statements in Hume’s text, one would not be wrong to say that historical miracles for him are impossible. The deciding factor in each case of reported miracles is evidence. Yet Hume was not, and would never have been able to examine all the cases of reported miracles and the evidence in their favour, so as to judge conclusively the inadequacy of their forces. He inevitably generalizes wrongly, jumping to conclusion from only few particular cases. I have the impression that Hume’s criticism of miracle would have constituted a formidable piece if he had limit his consideration to few known cases while avoiding judgment about cases not yet known or tested for evidence. From this failure of Hume, it is not wrong at all to conclude that Hume has committed the fallacy of