I also agree with Hume's position because I consider myself somewhat of an empiricist. I feel that people adopt their beliefs of the world due to classical conditioning and experience. Moreover, much of our actions are a result of the "pleasure, pain" decision making process. The experiences allow us to adopt the laws of nature. I would not, however, consider myself an empiricist in the sense of Hume. I feel that there are a select few ideas that one must be born with to survive; we cannot be born with a tabula rasa. For example, I feel it is necessary for everyone to possesses the concept of self identity without having to experience anything. One will at least know the "I think" as mentioned by Descartes. Not everything can be based on experiences. But on the topic of miracles I will agree to is that anyone who considers themselves an empiricist must adopt Hume's well thought out position. If someone is an empiricist they must (by definition) base their beliefs on their experiences. The culmination of uniform experiences creates the laws of nature, as mentioned by Hume. A miracle, however, violates these laws of nature, thus violates a person's previous experience. Keep in mind, however, that if a person is an empiricist, then their beliefs of the world are based on experience. To believe in a miracle is to discount prior experiences. If one discounts prior experience, they are not an empiricist. Thus, if you are an empiricist, you must view miracles as improbable (as noted by Hume). If you do not, then you are not an empiricist to begin with.

I, personally, agree with Hume's position on miracles. This, however, is contingent on one's definition of miracles. As previously noted, Hume defines miracles which are violations of the laws of nature, derived from our experience over time. If one were to object Hume's definition of miracles, then it is possible for them to occur. If the definition of a miracle was expanded to represent an occurrence that was just improbable (and no violation of any laws of nature) then the power of Hume's argument would be diminished. For instance, if a miracle is nothing more than Boston University winning the National Championship in basketball (which is very improbable as everyone knows), then miracles might be possible. Hume, however, does not purport this definition to miracles. He uses the example of "better weather in any week of June than in one week of December," to illustrate this point (Hume p.73). Though experience tells us that this is true, it is possible that weather in December might be better than that of June. Hume would not classify this weather phenomenon as a law of nature; therefore no miracle would have occurred. Hume further claims that a wise man proportions his belief to evidence. By this he means, he, the wise man, weighs the probability of an event occurring (through experience), then uses this to foster his beliefs. If the conclusions are infallible then a miracl

Some common words found in the essay are:
Human Understanding, June Hume, National Championship, laws nature, , prior experiences, miracles violations, miracles hume, hume's empiricism, cause effect, hume's position, definition miracles, dead person, uniform experience, Boston University, hume's position miracles, miracles violations laws, based prior experiences, violation laws nature, agree hume's position,
Approximate Word count = 2002
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page double spaced)