Sober Philosophy: Hume On Miracles (Robert presents, AZF)

"When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other... and always reject the greater miracle." David Hume

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Carl Sagan

In "Of Miracles" (1748) David Hume pivoted from a traditional question of whether God performs miracles, to the epistemological question of the weight of evidence is required to rationally believe a reported miracle. Hume defines a miracle as a violation of of the laws of nature by a supernatural agent. The laws of nature are are established by an unbroken, uniform human experience (e.g., dead men do not rise, lead does not float). Since a wise person proportions their belief to the evidence, Hume concluded that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony's falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact it endeavors to establish.
Did Hume beg the question? He defined a law of nature as something supported by "unanimous experience." But if we assume experience is unanimous against miracles to prove that miracles don't happen, we have premptively excluded any testimony of a miracle from being considered valid evidence in the first place. If we strictly proportion belief to past uniform experience, how do we rationally process an unprecedented natural discovery? When reports first reached Europe of meteorites falling from the sky or electricity moving through wire, uniform past experience said those things were impossible. Does Hume’s framework make it irrational to accept a genuine black swan event?

What is a miracle? How can we distinguish one from something that is merely extraordinary and unprecedented to our experience?

AMAZON FORMAT (AZF):
We will begin the meeting by watching the video above on a laptop together.

Symptom-free (of potentially contagious disease) people with the capacity to listen considerately to diverse viewpoints are invited to attend after successfully RSVPing.

We begin the meeting at 7:30 pm sharp at the mezzanine above the lobby of the Graduate Hotel in the University District: 4507 Brooklyn Ave NE, Seattle, WA 98105.

Directions for first-timers at the Graduate Hotel:
From the front hotel entrance go to the right. Turn left around the corner to enter through the north valet entrance. If the valet questions you just say you're here for the philosophy group. Go straight to the main lobby and turn right behind the large bookshelves before the elevators. Enter the stairway on your left, go up one flight, and go through the first door you encounter to enter our meeting area.

2-MINUTE OPENING ROUNDTABLE FORMAT (2ORF):

1. The topic presenter begins the discussion by taking up to two minutes explaining why they are interested in the topic and some introductory thoughts on it.
2. Each participant in turn going clockwise from the presenter has up to two minutes to describe their general thoughts on the topic.
3. If one is not ready to speak they can just say “pass” and the next person speaks.
4. After we've gone around once anyone who passed will get a second chance to comment.
5. Once everyone has given opening remarks or passed twice, Opening Roundtable is completed and the meeting shifts into TDRF>4 below.

TIMED DIRECTION FORMAT:
We will use the format below.

1. We will divide up the timed direction discussion time by the number of participants plus one (for a buffer). A timer will be set for this amount of time.
2. Each participant in turn will become a Discussion Director and lead the group discussion.
3. If one is not ready to direct they simply say “pass” and the next person becomes the Discussion Director.
4. Anyone who arrives after step 1 (above), may participate but will not get a turn as Discussion Director.
5. The Discussion Director can make statements or ask questions, or interrupt or redirect the discussion at their discretion.
6. The discussion participants can state their own opinions only when asked by the Discussion Director, not Interrupt others and accede to the Discussion Director’s interruptions or redirections.
7. When the timer goes off the person speaking finishes their thought and then the next participant clockwise becomes the next Discussion Director.
8. After we've gone around once anyone who passed will get a second chance to direct.

TOPIC SELECTION:
For the last 10 minutes of the meeting, participants will have an opportunity to vote on the topic and format for the following meeting.