Does David Hume’s famous argument against the credibility of miracles hold up under rigorous logical and historical scrutiny? John Earman, a distinguished philosopher of science, examines the 18th-century intellectual landscape to evaluate the strength of Hume’s claims. By applying modern probabilistic frameworks to the historical context of the debate, Earman argues that Hume’s position is largely derivative and logically flawed in its original contributions.

Experts in the philosophy of religion and epistemology regard this work as a rigorous challenge to the traditional interpretation of Hume’s essay. Readers frequently note the technical density of the prose, which requires a foundational understanding of probability theory and formal logic to fully appreciate.