Hume and miracles Examine Hume’s views on miracles.
Hume rejected the idea of miracles due to his belief they were beyond the realms of reasonable belief there are other interpretations of the events which would be more likely. Hume believes wise and sensible people will form their beliefs on evidence. Therefore it must be more likely that it is true than it being false before they believe it.
Hume argued we should weigh up the evidence in the case of miracles. We should look at which more likely; natural rules will have held good, or is it more likely that a miracle will have taken place. By Hume’s thinking our past experiences have shown us that for example, we can’t turn water into wine, we can’t rise from the dead, we can’t walk on water, therefore the whole weight of past experiences we have had bears this out. This leads to us being sceptical when it comes when looking at reports that something different has happened.
You have several choices when/if someone tells you they’ve witnessed a miracle. You could believe what the person is telling you, if you know the person well enough and know they usually tell the truth then you would do so. However, you could believe that the person is mistaken or deceiving you on purpose. For Hume, he argued that a reasonable person would choose the most likely of the choices, even though it may be unlikely that the person is deceiving you and unlikely that they’ve made a mistake it will always be more unlikely that a miracle has actually taken place. By using probability it shows that in every case that it would be unreasonable to believe in the miracle.
Hume also argued that to be able to call a miracle a miracle it has to be something that has never happened within the normal world therefore they do not happen by their own definition. In Hume’s own words ‘as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle’. This means there is direct contradiction as there is always a uniform experience that is against every miracle.
Hume would also argue that those claiming miracles happened and telling the stories tended to come from ignorant and barbarous places and nations, it was not from the well-educated. Leading to the testimony of people who had witnessed miracles first hand was not to be trusted. These people usually exaggerated the stories and Hume suggested that this sort of gossiping was part of human nature. we should only take notice of these stories if the person had a reputation to lose if the stories turned out to be untrue or if they had nothing to gain from telling them. Hume argued that people have a tendency to look for a marvellous event and want to believe in the supernatural and paranormal. These may make the individual misinterpret the events.
Hume noted that there were different miracle stories from different religions and they contradicted each other. Within Christianity they aim to show Jesus as the primary authority, whereas within Islam they claim it’s Muhammad who’s been given the primary authority by God. Each of these differing accounts actually weaken the others evidential force. Analyse and evaluate criticisms made of Hume’s argument.
Hume’s definition of miracle is criticised on numerous occasions. People would argue that Hume actually fails to be able to recognise the laws of nature tells us about what has been observed not what it may or may not do. Therefore if something happens and it goes against the rules of nature it does not break a rule it is just different from previous events. A violation of the laws of nature isn’t impossible it is simply just an unusual occurrence that is adding to our understanding.
It’s argued against Hume’s view of looking at the laws of nature, as it is typical of one in the 18th and 19th centuries. Nowadays we’re more likely to acknowledge laws of science. They work as descriptors of what has been observed, and as humans we’re willing to accept that it‘s possible to come across exceptions to the rules which lead us to change what we have thought to be true beforehand. This is due to us being more willing to accept events that may occur beyond our past experiences but are still likely to think there’s a scientific explanation for them. Others such as J. L. Mackie say when Hume speaks about miracles he simply means that it’s an exception to any normal processes of nature and doesn’t show any misunderstanding of the nature of the laws of nature.
Modern thinkers are likely to modify Hume’s view. Miraculous events aren’t impossible but just unlikely. Hume would say sensible people would choose the likely interpretation of an event.
There are some theologians who would object Hume’s definition of miracle due to the fact that it misses the point of a miracle being a revelatory purpose. Miracles are not just exceptions to the normal course of nature but an event that holds a special significance and reason. The reason is for God to be revealed.
Modern liberal theologians such a Wiles consider that there’s an element of myth within the Bible. They may agree with Hume that there’s stories in which seem improbable that’s hard for a rational person to believe but it doesn’t make the entire miracle story worthless. The miracle story may have been a way to say that God is like this. We may not be able to accept a view that includes miraculous events but it doesn’t mean we have to reject revelation as well.
Hume’s argument that testimonies to miracles were unreliable due to them coming from uneducated people with interest in having their stories accepted. How do you define when people are educated, people are all educated just to different levels. A criticism to this is that it does not consider the possibility of first-hand experience of having a miracle assuming we can only learn of miracles by reports. It has been suggested that if Hume himself had experienced a miracle himself his view may have changed.
Hume also doesn’t consider that miracles may leave behind evidence that can be seen by many. Hume may be right that many reports of miracles have been exaggerated but it doesn’t mean that it’s true for every account. Hume believes that no reasonable person could believe in miracles, perhaps it was inevitable that he’d consider those who report miracles to be ignorant or barbarous but they aren’t.
Hume’s point about different miracle stories from different religions contradict each other is his weakest argument. It doesn’t follow different beliefs make different claims then they must be wrong. It is possible that one is true the other not. It would be a more successful criticism if it could be shown that the reports within one religion were contradictory.
Hume can also be criticised for going from what is improbable to what is beyond rational acceptance. There are many reports where there are very unlikely things which happen where the balance of probability heavily weighed against their occurrence but this doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. We can all think of times in our lives when something highly unlikely happened for example if we are thinking of a friend we haven’t spoken to in a long time and then they phone. If we were to report this to Hume he may have concluded we were mistaken because of the probability against it actually happening even though we know it did happen. How far have Hume’s defenders succeeded in answering the critics.
Hume’s definition of miracle is criticised on numerous occasions. People would argue that Hume actually fails to be able to recognise the laws of nature tells us about what has been observed not what it may or may not do. Therefore if something happens and it goes against the rules of nature it does not break a rule it is just different from previous events. A violation of the laws of nature isn’t impossible it is simply just an unusual occurrence that is adding to our understanding. Defenders of Hume point out that any historical evidence which shows that as an entire nation becomes educated the number of stories reported about miracles reduced. Dawkins is a defenders of Hume who is defending the claim about the uneducated peoples reports of miracles is simply to help cover up any lack in understanding of the way of the world and to help increase the populations belief in God. Atkins is another defender of Hume. He states that those wishing to gain something or is hallucinating from reporting miracles would only claim to have had these experiences due to lack of scientific understanding. Therefore this supports that those who are sensible would not report a miracle.