ABSTRACT
Contrary to the those who believe Hume’s argument is more or less a stand-alone work, I argue that Hume’s “Of Miracles” cannot properly be understood apart from his analysis of causation, a posteriori reasoning, and the most fundamental element of his empiricism – his analysis of “impressions” and “ideas” (T 1.1.1–7; SBN 1–25; EHU II.11–17; SBN 17–22). Given these intrinsic connections to his Treatise, it is easy to show why that argument is properly understood as an a priori argument against the possibility of justified belief in miracles, and to show that his argument fails.
