Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T11:19:15.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Locke and Hume on competing miracles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2022

Nathan Rockwood Open the ORCID record for Nathan Rockwood [Opens in a new window]
Nathan Rockwood*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Brigham Young University, 4086 JFSB, Provo, UT 84602, USA
*
Email: nathan_rockwood@byu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Christian apologists argue that the testimony of the miracles of Jesus provide evidence for Christianity. Hume tries to undermine this argument by pointing out that miracles are said to occur in other religious traditions and so miracles do not give us reason to believe in Christianity over the alternatives. Thus, competing miracles act as an undercutting defeater for the argument from miracles for Christianity. Yet, before Hume, Locke responds to this kind of objection, and in this article I explain and defend his response. In short, Locke argues that God will ensure that there is more evidence for Christianity (if true) and this greater evidence is an undercutting defeater for Hume's competing miracles defeater (i.e. it is a defeater-defeater). If so, then, as Locke argues, competing miracles do not weaken the evidence from miracles for Christianity.

Keywords

miraclesLockeHumedefeatersreligious disagreement
Type
Original Article
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 59 , Issue 4 , December 2023 , pp. 603 - 617
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, C (2018) Hume, defeat, and miracle reports. In Benton, M, Hawthorne, J, and Rabinowitz, D (eds), Knowledge, Belief, and God. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 13–18.Google Scholar
Burns, RM (1981) The Great Debate on Miracles: From Joseph Glanvill to David Hume. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, D (1997) Miracles in the world religions. In Geivett, RD and Habermas, GR (eds), In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God's Action in History. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, pp. 119–213.Google Scholar
Craig, WL (1985) The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist Controversy. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar
Dumsday, T (2008) Locke on competing miracles. Faith and Philosophy 25, 416–424.10.5840/faithphil200825442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J (2000) Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0195127382.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, GR and Licona, MR (2004) The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.Google Scholar
Hume, D (1748/1975) Enquiry concerning human understanding. In Selby-Bigge, LA (ed.), Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals, 3rd edn rev. Nidditch PH (ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 5–165. References given as ‘Enquiry’ and page number.Google Scholar
Johnson, D (1999) Hume, Holism, and Miracles. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Larmer, R (2022) Locke's miracle mistake. Sophia, forthcoming (early access April 2022).10.1007/s11841-022-00903-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, J (1690/1975) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Nidditch PH (ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. References given as ‘Essay’ and by book, chapter, and section.10.1093/oseo/instance.00018020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, J (1695/1999) The Reasonableness of Christianity, Higgins-Biddle J (ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. References given as ‘Reasonableness’ and page number.10.1093/oseo/instance.00017461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, J (1706/1823) A discourse of miracles. In The Works of John Locke in Ten Volumes, IX. London: Reprinted for Thomas Tegg in 1823. References given as ‘Miracles’ and page number.Google Scholar
Lucci, D (2021) John Locke's Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McGrew, T and McGrew, L (2009) The argument from miracles: a cumulative case for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. In Craig, WL and Moreland, JP (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 593–662.10.1002/9781444308334.ch11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, TB and Imbrosciano, A (2005) The curious case of Mr. Locke's miracles. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 57, 147–168.10.1007/s11153-004-1682-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J (1986) Contemporary Theories of Knowledge. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Rockwood, N (2018) Lockean essentialism and the possibility of miracles. Southern Journal of Philosophy 56, 293–310.10.1111/sjp.12277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rockwood, N (2022) Locke on reason, revelation, and miracles. In Gordon-Roth, J and Weinberg, S (eds), The Lockean Mind. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 545–553.Google Scholar
Sobel, JH (2003) Logic and Theism: Arguments for and against Beliefs in God. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511497988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, S (2020) Locke's natural and religious epistemology. Journal of the History of Philosophy 58, 241–266.10.1353/hph.2020.0038CrossRefGoogle Scholar