Robert J. Fogelin.

A Defense of Hume on Miracles

Richard Otte
Hume Studies Volume 31, Number 1, (2005) 165 - 168.
Your use of the HUME STUDIES archive indicates your acceptance of HUME
STUDIES’ Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.humesociety.org/hs/about/terms.html.

HUME STUDIES’ Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have
obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple
copies of articles, and you may use content in the HUME STUDIES archive only for your
personal, non-commercial use.

Each copy of any part of a HUME STUDIES transmission must contain the same
copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
For more information on HUME STUDIES contact
humestudies-info@humesociety.org

http://www.humesociety.org/hs/
Hume Studies
Volume 31, Number 1, April 2005, pp. 165–168

Book Reviews

ROBERT J. FOGELIN. A Defense of Hume on Miracles. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton

University Press, 2003. Pp. xii + 101. ISBN 0-691-11430-7, cloth, $24.95/£16.95.

With A Defense of Hume on Miracles Robert Fogelin enters the recent discussion
on Hume’s treatment of miracles. In this short book Fogelin begins by present­
ing his interpretation of Hume’s argument concerning miracles. The second
chapter is a lengthy treatment of recent work by David Johnson and John Ear-
man, and the third short chapter is a discussion of the relation of Hume’s view
on miracles to his broader philosophy. There are also two appendices and the
text of “Of Miracles.”
Fundamental to Fogelin’s interpretation of Hume is the distinction between
two ways of evaluating testimony for a miracle. A direct test looks at the qualities
of the testimony that tend to make it reliable or unreliable; this is connected with
the likelihood of the miracle occurring given the testimony for it. If the quality
of the testimony for something, such as a miracle, is high enough, then accord­
ing to Hume we have a “proof” of the event attested to. A reverse test looks at the
probability of the event attested to, before the testimony is taken into account;
this is the prior probability of a miracle occurring. The reverse test can provide a
proof against the event if the improbability of the event is low enough. According
to Fogelin, both the direct test and indirect test are important factors in evaluat­
ing testimony for a miracle. The basic theme of part 1 of Hume’s essay involves

Volume 31, Number 1, April 2005

166 BOOK REVIEWS

situations in which we have both a proof based on the direct test for a miracle
and a proof based on the reverse test against a miracle.
In contrast to most interpretations of Hume on miracles, Fogelin argues that in
situations in which we have competing proofs for a miracle, Hume does not claim
that the reverse test has priority over the direct test or that it is impossible for the
miracle to be adequately supported. Fogelin argues that Hume does not claim that
no testimony for a miracle can ever be successful; we need to assess the strength
of the evidence for the miracle. One problem with this interpretation of Hume,
that Fogelin discusses at length, is that most philosophers do not read Hume this
way. Many think it plausible to read Hume as giving some sort of argument to the
effect that no testimony could ever support a miracle, and several passages seem
to indicate that because of the nature of testimony and laws, no testimony could
support a miracle. Fogelin responds that this position faces the serious problem
that Hume gives an example of a specific miracle that he would accept on the basis
of testimony (eight consecutive days of darkness). Fogelin emphasizes that Hume
gives no argument that might plausibly be interpreted as an a priori argument
against miracles, especially any simple a priori argument that relies on it being
conceptually impossible for a miracle to occur.
Although many commentators think that part 2 is not important to Hume’s
argument, on Fogelin’s reading it is of crucial importance. Since Hume allows that
testimony could be sufficient to support a miracle, in part 2 Hume investigates
direct proofs for miracles, and concludes that no testimony can be strong enough
to support a miracle being a basis for religious belief. Fogelin notes that Hume does
allow that testimony may support a miracle, but only if the miracle is not intended
to be the foundation of a religion. Thus on Fogelin’s reading of Hume’s argument,
part 1 is used to set the standard that any testimony for a miracle must pass, and
part 2 argues that no testimony for a miracle can meet that standard. Both parts
are essential to a proper understanding of Hume’s argument; the argument would
be considerably weakened if either were ignored.
Fogelin calls critics of Hume who ignore part 2 and interpret Hume as giving
an a priori argument “gross misreaders” of Hume. In chapter 2, Fogelin begins by
discussing David Johnson’s Hume, Holism, and Miracles, which he considers to
be a gross misreading of Hume. Fogelin discusses several arguments he finds in
Johnson’s book, such as the charge that Hume’s argument is circular, obscure,
question begging, and relies on an a priori argument. Johnson says that a Hu­
mean argument must show that one witness to a miracle can never outweigh the
testimony for a well-established law of nature. Fogelin understands this to show
that Johnson is demanding an a priori argument (presumably based on part 1
of Hume’s essay), and responds that no such argument can claim to be Hume’s
argument. Given that Johnson’s interpretation of Hume is quite different than

Hume Studies
 BOOK REVIEWS 167

Fogelin’s, it is not surprising that Fogelin classifies Johnson as a gross misreader

of Hume.
John Earman is not a “gross misreader” of Hume’s essay, but is what Fogelin
calls a “subtle misreader” of Hume. In Fogelin’s discussion of Earman’s Hume’s
Abject Failure he focuses on the claim that Hume was committed to some version
of the straight rule: if a large number of As are observed and all of them are Bs,
then the probability of all As are Bs is 1. According to Fogelin,

Earman’s criticism turns on a single claim: Hume’s argument, he holds,

depends on a commitment to what Earman calls Hume’s straight rule, and
that rule has disastrous consequences. The evidence he cites in favor of
this attribution is Hume’s frequent use of strong conclusionary language.
I have argued that his speaking in this common sort of way does not war-
rant our assigning to Hume a commitment to an unpalatable version of
the straight rule. (53)

All of Fogelin’s criticisms of Earman are based on Earman’s attribution of the

straight rule to Hume. Fogelin argues that Hume does not accept the straight rule,
because it runs counter to both the general structure of Hume’s essay on miracles
and to Hume’s fallibilism, which lies at the core of his philosophical standpoint
(53). Indeed, on Fogelin’s interpretation Hume turns out to be much closer to
Bayesianism than many would think.
But although it is true that Earman thinks Hume adopts the straight rule,
much (if not most) of his discussion is not based on that claim. Earman is well
aware of the technical problems that arise from using the straight rule to set the
probability of a miracle to 0. Although it may surprise Fogelin to find Earman being
charitable towards Hume, as a result of problems with the straight rule, Earman
sets aside his belief that Hume is committed to some version of the straight rule
and in latter chapters of his book he explicitly assumes that the probability of a
miracle is greater than 0. This allows Earman to discuss aspects of Hume’s argu­
ment that do not rely on adoption of the straight rule. I would like to have seen
Fogelin discuss Earman’s treatment of Hume’s “general maxim” and main thesis;
these are very important parts of Earman’s discussion of Hume, and Fogelin’s
treatment of Earman would have been much better if he had discussed Earman’s
arguments on topics other than the straight rule. As it stands it is difficult to
see why Fogelin’s arguments give a reason to think Earman’s main criticisms of
Hume are misguided.
A Defense of Hume on Miracles is clear, well-written, and contains a sustained
argument for Fogelin’s interpretation of Hume on miracles. Fogelin is aware that
most philosophers interpret Hume differently, and in this book Fogelin gives a

Volume 31, Number 1, April 2005

168 BOOK REVIEWS

nice defense of his interpretation of Hume. It is customary for a reviewer to make

a recommendation on whether or not to read a book; in this case this is easy to
do. Why would anyone who is interested in the subject of Hume on miracles not
want to read a well-written book full of arguments whose body is only sixty-two
pages long?

RICHARD OTTE
Department of Philosophy
University of California
Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA
otte@ucsc.edu

Hume Studies