What do you think?
Rate this book
A Dissertation on Miracles: Containing an Examination of the Principles Advanced by David Hume, in an Essay on Miracles, With a Correspondence on the ... Blair, to Which Are Added Sermons and Tracts
This is a reproduction of the original artefact. Generally these books are created from careful scans of the original. This allows us to preserve the book accurately and present it in the way the author intended. Since the original versions are generally quite old, there may occasionally be certain imperfections within these reproductions. We're happy to make these classics available again for future generations to enjoy!
- GenresPhilosophy
386 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1776
About the author
George Campbell
47 booksRev Prof George Campbell DD FRSE was a figure of the Scottish Enlightenment, known as a philosopher, minister, and professor of divinity. Campbell was primarily interested in rhetoric, since he believed that its study would enable his students to become better preachers. He became a philosopher of rhetoric because he took it that the philosophical changes of the Age of Enlightenment would have implications for rhetoric.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 8, 2024
A MINISTER AND PHILOSOPHER CRITIQUE’S HUME’S “ESSAY ON MIRACLES”
Rev. George Campbell (1719-1796) was a philosopher, minister, rhetorician, and professor of divinity during the Scottish Enlightenment.
He wrote in the “Advertisement” for this 1762 book, “It is not the only, nor even the chief, design of these sheets, to refute the reasoning and objections of Mr. Hume, with regard to miracles: The chief design of them is to set the principal argument for Christianity in its proper light… [Hume’s] Essay on Miracles deserves to be considered as one of the most dangerous attacks that have been made on our religion… The piece itself, like every other work of Mr. Hume, is ingenious…The merit of the AUTHOR, I acknowledge, is great. The many tasteful volumes he has published of History… have just procured him… the highest reputation as a writer. What a pity is it, that this reputation should have been sullied by attempts to undermine the foundation both of natural religion, and of revealed!”
He states in the Introduction, “My primary intention in undertaking an answer to the aforementioned Essay, hath invariably been to contribute all in my power to the defense of a RELIGION, which I esteem the greatest blessing conferred by heaven on the sons of men. It is at the same time a secondary motive of considerable weight, to vindicate PHILOSOPHY, at least that most important branch of it which ascertains the rules of reasoning, from those absurd consequences which this author’s theory naturally leads us to.” (Pg. 13)
Against Hume’s contention of "uniform” and “firm and unalterable experience” of the laws of nature, Campbell argues, “What is the precise meaning of the words ‘firm,’ ‘unalterable,’ ‘uniform’? An experience that admits no exception, is surely the only experience, which can with propriety be termed ‘uniform, firm, unalterable.’ … there must be no contrary testimony whatever. Yet by the author’s own hypothesis, the miracles he would thus confute, are supported by testimony. At the same time… he is under a necessity of supposing that there is no exception from the testimonies against them. Thus he falls into the paralogism, which is called BEGGING THE QUESTION… He admits, in opening his design, what in his argument he implicitly denies…
“I leave it therefore to [Hume] to explain, with what consistency he can assert, that the laws of nature are established by an uniform experience… and at the same time allow, that almost all human histories are full of the relations of miracles and prodigies, which are violations of those laws. Here is, by his own confession, testimony against testimony… It will be vain to object, that the testimony in support of the laws of nature, greatly exceeds the testimony for the violation of those laws… I ask, Why are the testimonies much more numerous in the one case than in the other? The answer is obvious: Natural occurrences are much more frequent than such as a preternatural.” (Pg. 31-32)
He asks, “Will [Hume] say, that those most astonishing effects of electricity lately discovered, so entirely unanalogous to everything before experienced, will he say, that such facts no reasonable man could have sufficient evidence from testimony to believe? No. We may presume he will not, from his decision in the former case; and if he should, the common sense of mankind would reclaim against such extravagance. Yet it is obvious to every considerate reader, that his argument concludes equally against those truly marvelous, as against miraculous events; both being alike uncomfortable, or alike contrary, to former experiences.” (Pg. 37)
Against Hume’s argument, “I weigh the one miracle against the other… and always reject the greater miracle,” Campbell retorts, “In almost every case that will occur… it will be impossible for the acutest intellect to decide, which of the two is the greater miracle… Have we not then some reason to dread, that the task will not be less difficult to furnish us with a MEASURE, by which we can determine the magnitude of miracles; than to provide us with a BALANCE, by which we can ascertain the comparative weight of testimonies and experiences?” (Pg. 53)
After noting that the power of working miracles was not claimed by the Waldenses, the Albigenses, John Wycliff, Jan Huss, Luther, Zwingli or Calvin, he argues, “Not that the want of real miracles was a presumption against the truth of their doctrine. The God of nature, who is the God of Christians, does nothing in vain. No new revelation was pretended to; consequently there was no occasion for such supernatural support.” (Pg. 77)
Nevertheless, he asserts, “I may warrantably conclude---that the religion of the Bible is the only religion extant, which claims to have been recommended by the evidence of miracles… there is not presumption arising from the history of the world, which can in the least invalidate the argument from miracles, in defense of Christianity.” (Pg. 80)
He summarizes in conclusion, “[Hume’] favorite argument… is founded in error, is managed with sophistry, and is at last abandoned by its inventor, as fit only for show, not for use… there is no particular presumption against religious miracles; that, on the contrary, there is a peculiar presumption in their favor; that the general maxims, whereby he would enable us to decide betwixt opposite miracles… is discovered to be no other than an identical proposition… that there is no presumption, arising either from human nature or from the history of mankind, against the miracles said to have been wrought in proof of Christianity.. that his examination of the Pentateuch is both partial and imperfect, and consequently stands in need of a revisal.” (Pg. 131)
Those philosophers and Christian apologists seeking critiques of Hume more substantial than, say, C. S. Lewis's book 'Miracles,' will be greatly interested in this book.
Rev. George Campbell (1719-1796) was a philosopher, minister, rhetorician, and professor of divinity during the Scottish Enlightenment.
He wrote in the “Advertisement” for this 1762 book, “It is not the only, nor even the chief, design of these sheets, to refute the reasoning and objections of Mr. Hume, with regard to miracles: The chief design of them is to set the principal argument for Christianity in its proper light… [Hume’s] Essay on Miracles deserves to be considered as one of the most dangerous attacks that have been made on our religion… The piece itself, like every other work of Mr. Hume, is ingenious…The merit of the AUTHOR, I acknowledge, is great. The many tasteful volumes he has published of History… have just procured him… the highest reputation as a writer. What a pity is it, that this reputation should have been sullied by attempts to undermine the foundation both of natural religion, and of revealed!”
He states in the Introduction, “My primary intention in undertaking an answer to the aforementioned Essay, hath invariably been to contribute all in my power to the defense of a RELIGION, which I esteem the greatest blessing conferred by heaven on the sons of men. It is at the same time a secondary motive of considerable weight, to vindicate PHILOSOPHY, at least that most important branch of it which ascertains the rules of reasoning, from those absurd consequences which this author’s theory naturally leads us to.” (Pg. 13)
Against Hume’s contention of "uniform” and “firm and unalterable experience” of the laws of nature, Campbell argues, “What is the precise meaning of the words ‘firm,’ ‘unalterable,’ ‘uniform’? An experience that admits no exception, is surely the only experience, which can with propriety be termed ‘uniform, firm, unalterable.’ … there must be no contrary testimony whatever. Yet by the author’s own hypothesis, the miracles he would thus confute, are supported by testimony. At the same time… he is under a necessity of supposing that there is no exception from the testimonies against them. Thus he falls into the paralogism, which is called BEGGING THE QUESTION… He admits, in opening his design, what in his argument he implicitly denies…
“I leave it therefore to [Hume] to explain, with what consistency he can assert, that the laws of nature are established by an uniform experience… and at the same time allow, that almost all human histories are full of the relations of miracles and prodigies, which are violations of those laws. Here is, by his own confession, testimony against testimony… It will be vain to object, that the testimony in support of the laws of nature, greatly exceeds the testimony for the violation of those laws… I ask, Why are the testimonies much more numerous in the one case than in the other? The answer is obvious: Natural occurrences are much more frequent than such as a preternatural.” (Pg. 31-32)
He asks, “Will [Hume] say, that those most astonishing effects of electricity lately discovered, so entirely unanalogous to everything before experienced, will he say, that such facts no reasonable man could have sufficient evidence from testimony to believe? No. We may presume he will not, from his decision in the former case; and if he should, the common sense of mankind would reclaim against such extravagance. Yet it is obvious to every considerate reader, that his argument concludes equally against those truly marvelous, as against miraculous events; both being alike uncomfortable, or alike contrary, to former experiences.” (Pg. 37)
Against Hume’s argument, “I weigh the one miracle against the other… and always reject the greater miracle,” Campbell retorts, “In almost every case that will occur… it will be impossible for the acutest intellect to decide, which of the two is the greater miracle… Have we not then some reason to dread, that the task will not be less difficult to furnish us with a MEASURE, by which we can determine the magnitude of miracles; than to provide us with a BALANCE, by which we can ascertain the comparative weight of testimonies and experiences?” (Pg. 53)
After noting that the power of working miracles was not claimed by the Waldenses, the Albigenses, John Wycliff, Jan Huss, Luther, Zwingli or Calvin, he argues, “Not that the want of real miracles was a presumption against the truth of their doctrine. The God of nature, who is the God of Christians, does nothing in vain. No new revelation was pretended to; consequently there was no occasion for such supernatural support.” (Pg. 77)
Nevertheless, he asserts, “I may warrantably conclude---that the religion of the Bible is the only religion extant, which claims to have been recommended by the evidence of miracles… there is not presumption arising from the history of the world, which can in the least invalidate the argument from miracles, in defense of Christianity.” (Pg. 80)
He summarizes in conclusion, “[Hume’] favorite argument… is founded in error, is managed with sophistry, and is at last abandoned by its inventor, as fit only for show, not for use… there is no particular presumption against religious miracles; that, on the contrary, there is a peculiar presumption in their favor; that the general maxims, whereby he would enable us to decide betwixt opposite miracles… is discovered to be no other than an identical proposition… that there is no presumption, arising either from human nature or from the history of mankind, against the miracles said to have been wrought in proof of Christianity.. that his examination of the Pentateuch is both partial and imperfect, and consequently stands in need of a revisal.” (Pg. 131)
Those philosophers and Christian apologists seeking critiques of Hume more substantial than, say, C. S. Lewis's book 'Miracles,' will be greatly interested in this book.
Displaying 1 of 1 review