Abstract

It has often been suggested (1) that according to Hume it is impossible in principle for testimony to prove a miracle, and (2) that an indispensable element in Hume's argument is the claim that a miracle is by definition a violation of the laws of nature. I argue that both (1) and (2) are mistaken, and that, once Hume's 'Of Miracles' is viewed in a proper historical context, it emerges that Hume's argument against miracles is considerably different from what is usually supposed.