Comment on the view that arguments against miracles are stronger than those arguments in support of them

David Hume proposed his definition of a miracle but in spite of this Hume had criticisms claiming that it was not reasonable to believe in miracles as the evidence was totally unreliable. He stated two weaknesses to the belief in miracles: 1) Based on our large experience of natural laws, it makes more sense to say that there is some other explanation for example that we cannot know every natural law. For example, had Jesus been crucified in our time and come back to life after three days. Overall this could be regarded as a miracle today but it might not be considered as a miracle in the future 2) The evidence of miracles often comes from the testimony of others. We should not rely on such second-hand accounts, because accounts of others cannot be trusted. For example in Fatima thousands of witnesses claimed to have seen the sun spin and fall out of the sky however the witnesses may have been deceived because of their excitement. Firstly, Hume challenged the testimonies of miraculous occurrences on the ground that there were not enough reliable witnesses. There have never been enough a miracle which has been witnessed by a sufficiently large number reliable, objective witnesses. For example there will never be a large enough amounts of educated, reasonable, trustworthy and respected men for us to believe their testimony the resurrection of Jesus was seen by a significant number of people. Secondly, Hume was sceptical of the fact that miracles played an important part in many different religions. Those who see miracles tend to be religious believers anyway and so are essentially looking for miracles; therefore they are more likely to see them in any unusual occurrence rather than looking for a more rational explanation. People who witness miracles wish for them to happen they may be deluded because it makes them feel good. An example of this is the ‘milk miracle’ in which the man dreamed that Lord (the Hindu god of success) craved milk, and after he woke up from his dream, he offered a spoonful of milk to a statue at his local temple in southern New Delhi. Thirdly, Hume observed that miracles tended to come from what he saw as unreliable ‘ignorant and barbarous nations’. This is clearly untrue as miracles are said to have occurred in very many countries. In Hume’s time most accounts of miracles derived from Italy and France and they could hardly be considered barbarous countries. Miracles seem to mainly occur in poor countries. Finally, Hume felt that the claims of different religions could not all be true and therefore, none of the evidence of the existence of miracles which comes from many different sources could be considered trustworthy. However, Hume’s critics would state that God is both omnipotent and omniscient and would therefore be able to perform miracles for all of His believers no matter what faith they follow. Is it not possible for God to work miracles for all people not just Christians?

Swinburne came up with two principles to oppose Hume’s reasons. Firstly, the principle of credulity can be used to oppose Hume’s first criticism that we cannot know every natural law. Swinburne states that you should believe what your senses tell you especially if the miracle is the simplest explanation for the events. Also Swinburne created the principle of testimony which again goes against Hume’s point that we should not accept the testimony of others Swinburne believes that you should believe the testimony of others if they are not drug users. If such claims are not believed, perhaps humans will cut themselves off from the truth and would be guilty of bias in judging such affairs. Although the principle of testimony may be enough to counter Hume’s second criticism, the principle of credulity has not taken into account the fact that there may well be natural laws that we are yet to discover and so this critique does not do enough to fully counter Hume’s criticism. Furthermore, Swinburne argues that it is reasonable to adopt principles of the testimony and credulity, the assumption that people tell the truth and it is therefore reasonable to believe them. He suggested that Hume was simply wrong to assume that miracles cannot occur.

William Paley challenged Hume’s 2 points by developing 2 argument. Hume’s God Hypothesis Argument attempts to contradict Hume’s point that we cannot know every natural law. Paley started with the assumption that God exists. If we assume that God exists it is not likely at certain important occasions, God may interrupt the laws of nature and make a miracle happen? However this argument uses God to prove the existence of God not miracles to prove the existence of God in which you would have to believe in God to consider an event as a miracle . The Honest Witness argument which goes against Hume’s point that we should never trust the testimony of others Paley stated that if a person is honest then we should trust them. Paley also states that if you do not believe the evidence of an honest witness you are shutting yourself from the truth. Paley tells a story to explain the argument. Twelve people witness a miracle. They tell their closest friends, but the story is leaked to the general public and the sceptical governor of this region finds out. He wishes to catch them out in a lie, so he has them arrested and tortured until they admit that they have been lying. All twelve are eventually tortured to death, because they will not stop believing that they have witnessed a miracle. Paley states that with such a commitment to irrational beliefs this testimony ought to be believed when it comes from these very trustworthy sources. When Hume claims that the testimony of others ought not to be believed, he is again shutting himself off from the claims of some witnesses who have no reason to lie, a consistent story and every reason to tell the truth about what they have seen. However, as convincing as Paley’s argument is in countering Hume’s second point, his first point still stands. Even if we could trust the testimony of those claiming to have witnessed a miracle, these witnesses may not know every natural law and so what they have seen could be an as yet undiscovered natural law. Helen Flanders Dunbar supported Hume’s claims against miracles that we are still discovering natural laws. Dunbar was a doctor investigated how the mind can the influence the body she also worked with patients suffering from shell shock or post-traumatic stress disorder during and after World War 2. The patient’s suffered from blindness and paralysation of the legs or an inability to talk. Dunbar concluded that one third of the patients with physical symptoms may not have anything physically wrong with them the illness may be in their head. If the mind can have such a powerful impact on the body, why should it not also be the case that the mind may be telling some people ‘you have rheumatoid arthritis?’ If the mind can generate such symptoms, why can’t it be the case that the mind can generate such symptoms disappear? In which the patients witnessing the psychosomatic healing could not be blamed to think that the psychosomatic healing is miraculous if they were unaware of the natural law which would explain such healing scientifically.

Lourdes in France is a place of pilgrimage where 6,500 people claimed that they had been miraculously, Jean Pierre Bely was a recent case, and Bely suffered from multiple sclerosis. Bely went on a pilgrimage to Lourdes, after 15 years of suffering from multiple sclerosis he was completely cured after bathing in Lourdes. The Catholic Church after 12 years confirmed that it was a miracle that Bely was cured. The Catholic Church found it difficult to claim that Bely’s healing was anything other than a miracle. Despite this Hume claimed that it was due to natural laws Hume did not believe in anything without proof. In conclusion, I think the arguments against miracles are stronger than the arguments for. I disagree with the criticism of Hume’s final point that that God is both omnipotent and omniscient and would therefore be able to perform miracles for all of His believers no matter what faith they follow. If this was true then God would be more than able to perform a miracle for the less fortunate people e.g. people who are starving in the developing world. Why does God not intervene in this situation? If God does intervene why is there suffering in the world? If God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent then he would be capable to perform a miracle for anyone. Also I agree with Hume’s second point that those who see miracles tend to be religious believers anyway and so are essentially looking for miracles which I think is not considered as a miracle using the ‘Milk miracle’ example the person dreamt that the Lord craved milk. However some people might disagree with me as it might be seen as a coincidence.