The Student Room Group

can somebody explain Swimbrune quote

Swinburne’s response to Hume’s multiple claims argument:
“If Hume were right to claim that evidence for the miracles of one religion was evidence against the miracles of any other, then indeed evidence for miracles in each would be poor. But in fact evidence for a miracle “wrought in one religion” is only evidence against the occurrence of a miracle “wrought in another religion” if the two miracles, if they occurred, would be evidence for propositions of the two religious systems incompatible with each other. It is hard to think of pairs of alleged miracles of this type. If there were evidence f or a Roman Catholic miracle which was evidence for the doctrine of transubstantiation and evidence for a Protestant miracle which was evidence against it, here we would have a case of the conflict of evidence which, Hume claims, occurs generally with alleged miracles. But it is enough to give this example to see that most alleged miracles do not give rise to conflicts of this kind. Most alleged miracles, if they occurred, would only show the power of god or gods and their concern for the needs of men, and little else.

My main conclusion, to repeat it, is that there are no logical difficulties in supposing that there could be strong historical evidence for the occurrence of miracles. Whether there is such evidence is, of course, another matter.” Swinburne
as i dont understand it
This is a simplified interpretation but I think gets the argument across:

Hume claims that if a miracle of one type of religion can be proven, that confirms their belief system and the existence of the god who is responsible for the miracle. Therefore, it also disproves other religions, because most do not accept the existence of gods outside of their own belief system.

But Swinburne says that this would only be true if the miracles in question were either the same or in conflict. For example, if two different religious groups claimed a miracle had happened because of their god, evidence of the actual cause would disprove one of their beliefs. Or in the case of a miracle which itself disproves something about another religion's doctrine - this is the example he gives regarding transubstantiation.

Does that help? Sorry I tried to be clear but can now see why the original quote is written so awkwardly!

Quick Reply