A miracle is also discredited as a transgression of a natural law is not considered enough to call an event a miracle. “Miracles are considered to point beyond themselves to some underlying plan or reality” (Jordon). This would therefore show Hume’s definition of a miracle to be questioned.
The conceptions we have of a natural order are in flux due to continuous scientific inquiries and discoveries. Consider the fact that human beings actually walked on the moon; that would have been considered impossible and, perhaps, a miracle, during Hume’s time.
Hick has argued that the Natural laws of nature should be stretched to encompass the unexplainable as it happens. Hick defines the law of nature as “generalizations formulated retrospectively to cover whatever has, in fact, happened…we can declare a priori that there are no miracles.” This means that we cannot classify anything as a miracle as we can always stretch the laws of nature to explain what has happened.
A third view of the definition of natural laws is by R F Holland who suggests that even those events that do not break any natural law may be considered miraculous, if the sense of divine purpose and significance is strong enough, “ A coincidence can be taken religiously as a sign and called a miracle.”
The difficulty is that, if we are to determine that a miracle has occurred because the laws of nature have been violated, we must be certain that we actually know all the laws of nature. This is unlikely ever to occur. There is also a kind of paradox involved here, when we say that miracles must involve a violation of the laws of nature, because natural laws are only generalized descriptions (originated by human beings) of what could happen. If the natural laws are violated, what we are then indeed saying is, that something is happening that does not happen. In effect, this limits miracles to direct acts of God which again rests on an absolute proof that a god exists; another unlikely event. This relegates miracles strictly to matters of faith bound up by religions.
The fact that Hume is an empiricist means that he believes that the laws of nature are formulated on uniform, public and past experience this is important as it weakens his understanding of ‘miracles’ as his definition is based Newton’s understanding of Natural laws which are fairly outdated.
An argument that has been used to discredit the belief in miracles is David Hume’s critiques of miracles. Hume does not argue that miracles are impossible, but that it would be impossible for us every to prove that one had happened. In Hume’s essay ‘On Miracles’ he attacks whether we should doubt testimonies. Hume initially talks about the law of nature and how they are based on past experiences. He states that it is more probable for a miracle not to have occur than it to actually happen, as one exception is not enough to convince us that the laws of nature have been broken. Hume continues to attack the evidence for miracles, human testimonies, “No testimony be of such kind, that its false hood would be more miraculous than the fact, which it endeavours to establish.”
His first important critique on testimonies is that he argues that there has never been a miracle with enough witnesses to put miracles beyond suspicions, “For first, there is not to be found. In all history, any miracle attested by a sufficient number of men, of such in questioned good sense, education and learning as so to secure against all delusion in themselves.” This is important as it discredits the belief in miracles as Hume is stating that no miracles have occurred without raising suspicion. However it is also important as how can we judge what would be a sufficient amount of education for one to have without raising suspicion. However Davies argues against Hume’s initial point. Davies argues that it is not clear as to how many witnesses constitute a sufficient number or what exactly constitutes good education, learning and sense, this is important as in flaws Hume’s initial first critique.
Hume’s second critique is that people are naturally prone to look for marvels and wonders and we therefore must be skeptical of reported miracles, “We ought to give the preference to such as are founded on the greatest number of past observations.” This is important as he argues that instantly if one was to see something spectacular they assume it is a miracle and this is usually not true. However Davies argues to this that it is not reasonable to disbelieve someone on these grounds. This is important as we can not prove that everyone would be lying if they witnessed a miracle.
His next critique was that those who see miracles are not usually ‘civilized’ people but primitive barbarous tribes, “It forms a strong presumption against all supernatural and miraculous relations, that they are observed highly to abound among ignorant and barbarous…” Davies argument is important to this critique as he states that one cannot assume that all witnesses are unreliable. Hume could not prove that every person who has reported a miracle is barbaric. Hume ignores the fact that claims could be investigated through physical data remaining in the present.
Finally Hume’s last critique which discredits the beliefs in miracles is that he argues that miracles are specific to the religion of the individual who has experienced the miracle. A testimony of a miracle therefore aims to promote and act as evidence in favour of that religion over any other. Therefore all testimonies of religions cancel out each other. However the fact that different religions report miracles is not enough for us to assume that they do not exist unless the actual miracles are mutually exclusive and cancel each other out.
Blackburn puts forward Hume’s argument but gives two situations which would discredit the beliefs in miracles. He argues that if we call a highly surprising event ‘m’ and the only evidence for m is that a person claimed that m occurred. You would have the choice between two views of the matter, either this person is saying that m happened but m did not or this person is saying that m happened and m did occur. He goes on to say that you would reject the more surprising claim. Therefore we would reject the fact the m did happen as it is far more likely that the miracle did not happen and that individual is lying.
Nonetheless not only can Davies response to Hume’s criticisms show miracles still to be strong in spite of these critics but so does Vardy. Vardy also makes an important strong point in spite of these criticisms as he argues that Hume’s writing were in a period when science was not advance, “Science advances by showing that our existing understanding of some natural laws are innocent.” This is important as it shows Hume’s definition to be out dated as things have change such as science. He also argues that probability is not proof when Hume states that it is more probable that miracles do not occur.
Swinburne states miracles to be strong in spite of Hume’s criticisms. He argues that we should believe people’s testimonies and should have no reason to doubt them. The principle of credulity maintains that it is a principle of “rationality that if it seems to a person that X is present, then probably X is present.” He also uses the Principle of Testimony which maintains that the experiences of others are probably as they reported them and people would not lie.
In conclusion, despite of these criticisms I think the belief in miracles are still very strong. As science is developing everyday one could assume that the laws of nature do stretch and change over period of time. If we look at the principle of Ockham’s razor he states that a simple and expected cause is the likely explanation for a certain event and that it is not justifiable to invent a more complex one, even if it is a possible alternative this therefore shows that despite Hume’s criticisms the belief in miracles can still be strong. Claims for miracles are either fraudulent or can be explained by new insights which cause us to update our pool of knowledge; otherwise they depend on the existence of God of whom we have no true knowledge. True knowledge is the bane of religious superstition, and such superstitions are what Hume intends to show as baseless and not worthy of our attention.
