On p. 2964-2965 of the Longman anthology, Boswell records Johnson's account of his reasons for disagreeing with Hume's account of miracles.
Is Johnson's refutation of Hume valid? Why or why not? Cite text (Hume or Johnson) to support your claims.
Deadline: Friday (10/2), start of class.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Johnson's refutation of Hume's argument contains no structure of reason to support his claims, and he significantly depends on the vague descriptions of the bible in order to back his beliefs. For example, Johnson says "although God has made Nature to operate by certain fixed laws, yet it is not unreasonable to think that he may suspend those laws" (2964). Johnson takes the uncomplicated route and places his entire argument in God. Furthermore, Johnson's counterclaim seems to be following a stronger approach towards propaganda than reason.
Johnson's response to Hume's claim was as valid as possible, given the circumstances. He is attempting to explain miracles, which are events that defy reason and must be taken on faith. Therefore, it is impossible to argue their existence without bringing up faith. I thought he incorporated reason into his argument as best as he could stating that "Christian religion is a most beneficial system...the miracles which prove it are attested by men who had no interest in deceiving us; but who, on the contrary, were told that they should suffer persecution, and did actually lay down their lives in confirmation of the truth of the facts which they asserted" (2964). Johnson is pointing out that the men who claimed these miracles existed, were so devoted in their belief that they were willing to sacrifice their own lives for the cause. Johnson's argument then is, would men give up their life and suffer persecution in the name of a miracle if they were not certain they existed? Just because the masses haven't witnessed them, does not mean they are not true. Again, miracles have to be taken on faith to some degree so it would be unreasonable to expect Johnson to provide a counter-argument based on fact and reason alone.
Johnson does successfully refute Hume’s assumption on the occurrence miracles. Johnson proposes that Hume’s rejection of miracles is based on his gratification of his own vanity. He draws the parallel of Hume’s agnosticism to religious thought in the moral lesson that one can not be in god’s love if he loves only himself. He can not be recognized as an unbiased observer of miracles since his own perversion with himself does not allow for scientifically uncontaminated outlook on the miracle question.
Thusly, Hume’s proposals on the falsehood of miracles are absurd and are as just as the comparison of milking a male bull for milk. “Truth…is a cow which will yield such people no more milk, and so they are gone to milk the bull. (Longman 2964)”
Johnson further attacks Hume on the capability for a human to challenge piety and understand the complexity of the world. “After a system is well settled upon positive evidence, a few partial objections ought not to shake it. (Longman 2964)”
The human mind is limited in the ability to hold and compute all the angles of a concept. Furthermore, Hume’s assertions on the lack of evidence around miracles does not dispute the system as a whole. Disputing one part of a dogma or attacking one observation does not undermine the entire system. Including the attempt to discard the fact that the men that inspired the gospels did so out of knowing discrimination, exile, and death only greeted them. Knowing such work would not gain them any Vanity; unlike what Hume attained in his ridicule.
For Johnson to approach miracles + God in a way that acknowledges the natural religion that we discussed in class earlier, it's no surprise then he uses that similar argument that through reason finding purpose even in elements of faith and God:
"God has made Nature to operate by certain fixed laws, yet it is no unreasonable to think that he may suspend those laws, in order to establish a system highly advantageous to mankind" (2964).
This reference points towards the possibility that something as extraordinary like miracles can definitely come out -- and Johnson's claim against Hume's beliefs here show that miracles are tightly associated with God which if indeed was something uncovered in natural religion must be asserted as a reasonable answer. Johnson makes miracles a tangible answer to the inexplicable phenomenon that might occur by justifying how Nature's laws indeed could bend if God is the creator (a thought that might've only been concluded by natural religion).
Post a Comment