“’Miracle,’ is a complex concept, with every aspect the basis for significant debate” (p.472).[1] David Hume (1711-1776) has offered a “classic and influential” argument for the debate, contending that Miracles do not exist because they go against the laws of nature. However, in this exposition, I will also argue that Miracles are impossible, but with the touch of the divine and supernatural intervention, even the most extraordinary and unbelievable of happenings can be reality.
Hume effectively criticizes the reliability of human testimony in establishing truths and provides four reasons for why miraculous claims are inherently invalid: The Witnesses are not reliable, Humans are gullible, Educated people are seldom convinced, and the Counterevidence is always stronger.[2] Hume directs his critique towards religious belief in an effective attempt that disables the miraculous foundation upon which all major religions are upheld. While there are many critiques to Hume’s ‘Of Miracles’, there are none so powerful as to completely discredit Hume’s argument. Hume begins his critique by establishing the definition of the word “miracle.” He states that, “a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature.”
David Hume, asserts that one's experiences allows for a foundation of reasoning to be formed, from which a person can reasonably deduce or expect a certain event of occurring given certain circumstances. As such, he goes on to say that person’s experiences or testimonies are thus the most essential and useful form of reasoning to us. However, he goes on to disclaim stories of miracles by stating that human beings are not always trustworthy and they have their own agendas, which lead to lies that would distort the truth. Following this, when faced with a conflict of experiences, Hume contends that when faced with a experience or testimonial of a miracle, he judges the probability exceedingly higher that the person who made the claim was either lying or lied to.
The weight of the lack of support from probability combined with Hume’s views that miraculous acts such as the resurrection of the dead defy what nature says can or cannot be done leads to his conclusion that miracles necessarily do not exist. However, I would argue that the premises Hume bases his conclusion upon are false although his conclusion that miracles are impossible may or may not be right. A more accurate statement would be, "Without God or some super natural being who actively intervenes in human affairs, there would be no such thing as miracles"
When someone uses the word Miracle' in our everyday context, it is unlikely that the miracle is referring to something like an act of resurrection or the parting of seas. Usually, claims of, ”it's a miracle!” would follow something fortunate on a scale far less grand such as receiving an inheritance from a long lost relative in times of dire financial need. I submit the idea that although the probability of such an eventuality occurring to an individual is really low, it does not mean that it could not happen. The chances that you or someone you know winning the lottery and accumulating millions of dollars is low. According to Hume, such events of such low probability are not worth taking serious and it would be easier to assume that anyone, “a reporter” who claims such an experience was either lying, hallucinating, or “magnifying country, his family or himself,” (477). However, we know from documentation from neutral parties that this is not the case, that there are some people who have been indeed been blessed with such outrageous “luck.” Hence, from this we can establish that just because an event has a very low probability of occurring, it does not mean it may not, or should not.
As mentioned earlier, people tend to use the term “miracle” in all sorts of contexts. However, in most of these cases, “miracle” is offered as a figure of speech or metaphorically in statements such as “it's a miracle he made it to the meeting on time” and doesn’t capture the actual meaning of the term. A miracle as defined by Webster's dictionary is, “An extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs”[3] with the key terms being “extraordinary” and “divine.” As such, even the most fantastic of occurrences such as a baby being ran over and not suffering any injuries would not be considered a miracle unless God or some supernatural being had intervened and prevented the injuries; it would instead be described as merely “extraordinary.” That being established, I would like to contest Hume's premise that Laws of nature are a testimony against Miracles. The reasoning for this is simple, if divine forces are involved the laws of nature are at the mercy of the divine, or super natural. Is the dead coming back to life, seas parting by themselves not natural? Absolutely! That's why these events are termed “supernatural” and not simply “natural.” Hence, it would be fair to conclude that since miracles necessarily involve the divine, laws of nature do not apply nor restrain them in any way. This is where one objector, Alistair Mckinnon would essentially say that if in fact a miracle takes place it isn’t really a miracle it is obeying hidden natural laws so we explore, and keep on exploring, so even a resurrection is possible just find the natural law that applies to this particular event, even the law that applies to the unique timing.[4] I would counter that unless we assume miracles are impossible we cannot assume that violations of nature are impossible.
It is not necessary for Hume to prove any miracles wrong. It is, however, necessary for the believers to prove the miracle to be true. While it may be true that most believers and propagators of the miraculous are indeed uneducated, ignorant, and barbaric, that alone does not discredit the fact that miracles do happen. While it may make it less likely for miraculous accounts to be true, it is not necessarily an argument against miracles. There are many examples of what appear to be miraculous events propagated by civilized and educated people, however Hume does address this in questioning the motives behind testimony and drawing attention to the fact that we all harbor some degree of ignorance about the world. While other objections exist, the most poignant only establish that Hume cannot disprove miracles, he can only point to the fact that reason dictates we should treat them with the utmost skepticism. However, these objections deny the burden of proof, which is upon the believers. Hume’s arguments provide a useful skeptical foundation for judging the validity of testimony concerning miraculous events.
Now that we've established low probability doesn't mean an event won't happen and that miracles are supernatural and transcend the laws of nature. Whether or not miracles really exist would be dependent on one crucial factor: Whether or not there is a God or all powerful being that actively participates in our worldly affairs. Assuming there is no such being, then miracles would not exist at all since all miracles are defined by the presence and touch of a supernatural being. On the other hand, assuming that such a being in fact does exist and this divine being has an inclination to intervene in our affairs causing extraordinary and marvelous works. Then, it would be wrong to deny that miracles exist. Of course, we have from experience realized that miracles do not happen often to everyone and as such the probability of a miracle being performed would be very low at best but as already discussed, a low probability isn’t proof of non-existence.
In conclusion, David Hume’s objection to miracles is successful in calling stories of miracles to question. I would like to state that although Hume may have been right to suggest that miracles do not exist, and it is impossible to determine truths from testimony that goes against the entire history of human experience and knowledge about the natural world. The founding premises for these beliefs are not true. Existence of miraculous acts would depend upon the presence of a higher being and not probability, or laws of nature. I would for that reason once again put forth my thesis (and I assume to be a rational being) that, "Miracles would inevitably not exist if a god or supernatural being who involves itself in human affairs does not exist.”
[1] Basinger, Hasker, Peterson, Reichenbach. “Philosophy of Christian Religion.” P. 472. New York, Oxford Univ. Press. 2007.
[2] Basinger, Hasker, Peterson, Reichenbach. “Philosophy of Christian Religion.” PP. 472-478. New York, Oxford Univ. Press. 2007.
[3] Webster, ‘Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 11th Edition’ p.792. Springfield, Mass. Merriam Webster Inc. 2012.
[4] Class Notes PH 501: Module 04 Lesson 02 Miracles Nov. 16th 2012
