I only remember Schmid from his arguments in favor of infinite causality to disprove the necessity of a "first cause" or "prime mover" - more of the realm of arguing over the generalize god-of-the-philosophers.
For him to suddenly pivot to the miracle discourse is odd, but then philosophers are not immune to rationalizing themselves into any possible position. Maybe it's the former Catholic in me but when I listen to the miracle apologists or Thomists I just see it as so much assumption-laden rationalizations, often accompanied with giant walls of text or Latin phrases clearly intended to impress.
"To reiterate what I’ve written previously, Hume’s argument is an a posteriori argument. It’s an argument based on matters of fact, not a priori logic. "
To me this is why so many of the Princeton philosophy crew are throwing up continual air balls on the subject of religion and miracles; philosophy as taught seems to always have to start with some standard set of hard-set logical assumptions; it doesn't like just starting from a bare minimum based on observed reality. Which is a real thing; unless one wants to be a clown "well is observed reality reliant on assumptions?" and get into the whole dumb-fu^& "are we in a simulator" debate which ugh I can't stand that bullshit. Honestly there's no way I could last in a Phil PHD program I'd end up at some point tipping over 10 desks and storming out.
Hume merely says "I don't know if I'm in a simulation or am being systemically deceived by a demon. I can only go with what I have." And thus creates his mitigated skeptic philosophy
Great post! The testimony bit is a subtle point, if youd forgive me for the self-promotion, I gestured towards it in my insistence for archaeological evidence rather than testimony for things like Christ's miracles.
I suppose Joe would respond by saying wr have physical evidence for miracles, like photos of fatima or Pio's stigmata. But of course thats pretty sus--as another of my friends pointed out, for instance, the fact that the "high quality" photos of fatima are behind a 250 bux paywall and forbidden to be distributed isnt exactly encouraging.
I only remember Schmid from his arguments in favor of infinite causality to disprove the necessity of a "first cause" or "prime mover" - more of the realm of arguing over the generalize god-of-the-philosophers.
For him to suddenly pivot to the miracle discourse is odd, but then philosophers are not immune to rationalizing themselves into any possible position. Maybe it's the former Catholic in me but when I listen to the miracle apologists or Thomists I just see it as so much assumption-laden rationalizations, often accompanied with giant walls of text or Latin phrases clearly intended to impress.
"To reiterate what I’ve written previously, Hume’s argument is an a posteriori argument. It’s an argument based on matters of fact, not a priori logic. "
To me this is why so many of the Princeton philosophy crew are throwing up continual air balls on the subject of religion and miracles; philosophy as taught seems to always have to start with some standard set of hard-set logical assumptions; it doesn't like just starting from a bare minimum based on observed reality. Which is a real thing; unless one wants to be a clown "well is observed reality reliant on assumptions?" and get into the whole dumb-fu^& "are we in a simulator" debate which ugh I can't stand that bullshit. Honestly there's no way I could last in a Phil PHD program I'd end up at some point tipping over 10 desks and storming out.
Hume merely says "I don't know if I'm in a simulation or am being systemically deceived by a demon. I can only go with what I have." And thus creates his mitigated skeptic philosophy
"Someone claimed to believe in miracles. Like everyone claiming this before, they're wrong."
There - shortened it for you. ;-)
"I Want To Believe"
-X-Files
Great post! The testimony bit is a subtle point, if youd forgive me for the self-promotion, I gestured towards it in my insistence for archaeological evidence rather than testimony for things like Christ's miracles.
I suppose Joe would respond by saying wr have physical evidence for miracles, like photos of fatima or Pio's stigmata. But of course thats pretty sus--as another of my friends pointed out, for instance, the fact that the "high quality" photos of fatima are behind a 250 bux paywall and forbidden to be distributed isnt exactly encouraging.