Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Bonaparte

In the 17th and 18th centuries skeptical treatments of Christianity, and Christ in particular, were on a tear. David Hume was one of the prominent atheistic philosophers that had concluded that secular, naturalistic, explanations had to be accepted at all times. He insisted that there could never be any kind of evidence sufficient to prove a miracle. Certainly, human testimony could never provide a firm basis! Hume did not go unanswered. In this little work by theologian Richard Whately, the tables are turned: using the exact same reasoning that Hume employed, Whately proceeded to cast doubt about the existence of Napoleon Bonaparte- a person who everyone 'knew' existed! The man had, after all, nearly conquered Europe just recently... or had he?

Dr. Whately cleverly puts the matter on the table: It is not too much to ask for some consistency! What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If a logical principle holds, it will hold across the board. If it applies to the existence of Jesus and the miracle claims, it applies equally to all situations where much, if not all, of our knowledge comes from human testimony.

In this short work, you will find yourself faced with the same issue. How will you decide it?

This edition contains a reader's guide by DJ Thompson to aid the reader in evaluating Whately's arguments. The paperback version of this digital edition comes with an index to enhance deeper study. This reader's guide is copyrighted!