|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 1, 2020 23:37:40 GMT
But then if it is so, so, special and if we accept that presumption, we ultimately end up with endless credulity, where nothing is impossible, as we can make endless exceptions to the rules for everything we can imagine, by offering exceptionalism as the only reason required that things might exist. Sure, but isn't that what a miracle is? If a miracle is defined as an exceptional supernatural event that overrides natural laws (a definition that I imagine Hume would readily accept) then Hume's argument boils down to "we shouldn't believe in reports of exceptional events because we ought only to believe in the unexceptional" - it still seems like question begging to me. Now, you could develop the point and give reasons why we shouldn't believe that exceptions can happen, but Hume doesn't do that. I think without evidence, the burden of proof is not mine here. (Not to mention the fact that because a super exceptional event is even possible, that does not mean it is likely). The question is more why we should believe , when the only reason is that might be is they are qualified into existence. Otherwise we can easily, like Carroll's Queen, end up believing six impossible things (or impossible things qualified into possibility) before breakfast. To extend your question, btw, is to ask why on this basis should we not believe absolutely everything we can quickly qualify as a 'special' case, since with all bets off, there is no distinction within that class of thing between 'good' and 'bad' special?
|
|
