In David Hume’s An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume seeks to establish the extent to which we are capable of knowing, especially as it relates to so-called “abstruse philosophy.” In a section of the Enquiry entitled “Of Miracles”, Hume casts doubt upon the veracity of miraculous claims, arguing that it is, as a maxim, irrational to accept the existence of a miracle on the basis of testimony. Hume’s argumentation for this claim begins with the fairly uncontroversial contention that our senses are fallible. As such, they may lead us astray in establishing matters of fact. Continuing on from this, Hume notes that not all apparent causes are followed by certain effects; rather, many are often variable such that we can only say that there is some uncertain probability of discrete effects occurring given some circumstance, “from the highest certainty to the lowest species of moral evidence”; in this case, “moral evidence” refers to evidence based on experience (73). As such, Hume contends, one ought to proceed with corresponding degrees of certainty regarding the occurrence of these effects, complete certainty with respect to absolutely certain effects and considerate caution with respect to more uncertain effects (73-74). Hume continues, noting that our conviction in the…show more content… “New” laws of nature are only new in the sense that they are new to us, themselves being eternal and unchanging, with our discovery of them dependent upon the constant conjunction of apparent causes and effects and a thenceforth developed habit of believing those apparent causes bring about certain effects. So, if one were capable of eliciting conjunctions of the causes and effects which would result in a new law of nature, acceptance of these new laws would be rational as one would then have previous experiences by which they could be verified in our
