Swinburne on miracles

1
Swinburne on miracles historical evidence

• Thesis the kind of reasoning used in evaluating
  testimony historical evidence is the same as
  that used in testing scientific theories. Hence
  historical testimony other historical evidence
  should not regarded as weaker knowledge than
  scientific theories.

2
Swinburne on miracles historical evidence

• What is the type of reasoning used?
• One type of inductive generalization
• E.G.
• I read Josephus there is a passage (A) in which
  he says that a catastrophic volcano occurred in
  Asia Minor in 35 A.D. on the basis of
  geological evidence I know this is true.

3
Swinburne on miracles historical evidence

• In passage B, he writes that Hernandes became
  ruler of the Roman province of Egypt in 48 A.D.
  on the basis of other evidence I know this is
  true.
• In passage C, etc.
• Josephus is a reliable historian in A, B, C.

4
Swinburne on miracles historical evidence

• Therefore, I assume he is reliable about D.
• Conclusion Testimony, when checked by standard
  inductive reasoning, ought to be given the same
  weight as inductive reasoning about nature.
  Indeed, this evidence can sometimes outweight the
  evidence of physical impossibility (407).

5
Swinburne on miracles historical evidence

• Addendum In The Existence of God, Swinburne
  introduces the Principle of Testimony
• In the absence of special considerations, the
  experiences of others are probably as they report
  them.