Al Ghazali and Hume on causation and miracles

Abstract

This paper is an attempt to show the similarities and differences between Al Ghazali and Hume on causation and miracles. Such a comparison is interesting because, long before Hume, the issue of necessary causality had been taken up by the Islamic philosophers Al Ghazal in his book The Incoherence the Philosophers. Although Ghazali's and Hume's views on causation are strikingly parallel to one another in their empirical contention, there are still some differences to be noted. First, both reject the view that the connection between causes and effects is of logical necessity. However, to give an ultimate reason for the theory of causality, unlike Hume, Ghazali makes a reference to God. For Hume, we cannot give an ultimate justification for the theory of causality. Second, while Ghazali aimed to reject the necessary causality in order to account for the occurrence of miracles, Hume, on the contrary, used his theory of causality to reject the claim that miracle can occur. In particular, I argue whether Hume's position allows logical possibility of the occurrence of miracle.