I'm struggling to reconcile David Hume's critiques of science and religion. On

I'm struggling to reconcile David Hume's critiques of science and religion. On

I'm struggling to reconcile David Hume's critiques of science and religion. On the one hand, he suggests that our application of cause/effect to natural phenomena is problematic since it ammounts to simply equating the present with the past. On the other hand, he warns us against believing in second-hand accounts of miracles since they are interruptions of natural law. Isn't our use of causal reasoning the way we determine the characteristics of natural law? Is this an inconsistency in his argument and, if so, does he address it anywhere?

Read another response by Donald Baxter, Stephen Maitzen
Read another response about Philosophers
Print