‘hume Is Right About Miracles.’ Evaluate This View.

David Hume was a Scottish philosopher and empiricist (1711-1776) who explored the concept of miracles in his essay on human understanding. His definition of a miracle ( a violation of a law of nature by the particular volition of the Deity ) alluded to him concluding that miracles are impossible. I disagree with this view to a large extent because there have been instances of miracles (such as the Tomb of Abb ) that meet Hume s criteria, yet he still holds that miracles are impossible. This contradiction leads me to believe that Richard Swinburne s contributions regarding natural laws and witnesses to miracles are more valid and accurate. However, there are still some issues with Swinburne s work about different religions having competing miracles and the consistency of miracles alongside God s nature that should not be overlooked.

According to Hume, a miracle is a violation of a natural law and the evidence in favour of a miracle will always be outweighed by the evidence for a natural law. Hume states that a wise man proportions his beliefs to the evidence , and since natural laws have full proof from observations, one should not believe in a miracle that goes against this evidence. For instance, there is a fixed law of gravity created from observations with constant regularity. A miracle goes against that fixed law, and even the most expansive testimony does not count as the uniformed and consistent proof against this event occurring. In contrast, Swinburne holds that the generality of a law of nature is not absolute the law describes what happens in terms of predictability and regularity. This means that a miracle is possible as they are natural events since they occur within the natural universe to natural objects. I think that Swinburne s argument makes more sense because laws of nature do have the ability to change over time, and therefore miracles can be seen as exceptions to natural laws as the laws are not absolute.

However, Swinburne s definition of miracles (including that for an event to be considered as a miracle, it must have religious significance) may be inconsistent with God s nature. This is because if God has the power to perform acts that drastically improve someone s life, such as the healing of Blind Bartemaeus , why wouldn t he help every human in this way? God choosing not to help certain people contradicts his omnibenevolent nature and emphasises the problem of evil. For example, Maurice Wiles expresses that if God could cure a child at Lourdes or help some people in trivial ways but does not stop the Holocaust or earthquakes, he is not worthy of worship. Wiles concluded that theologically it is better to believe in a God who does not perform miracles than a God who does not do any good. I think that this is a significant issue for Swinburne s definition of a miracle, and perhaps it is more appropriate to agree with Wiles and Hume, believing that it is impossible for God to perform miracles.

Despite this, there is a huge issue with Hume s points about witnesses. Hume expresses that a large number of educated and trustworthy are needed to see a public event in a celebrated part of the world and that there have never been these kinds of witnesses to a miracle. He said that sources of miracles originate from ignorant and barbarous nations and often have vested religious interest. The problem with this is that he begins with the belief that no reasonable person could believe in miracles, thus any witnesses must be ignorant. This is a generalisation, and he also does not specify the exact number of witnesses that he would deem sufficient. Furthermore, Hume rejects the Tomb of Abb being a miracle, despite it meeting his criteria. Although there were thousands of observers and it occurred in Paris, Hume still refused to accept that it was a miracle. This implies that Hume is too fixed on his own empiricist beliefs instead of being more open-minded and aware of other possibilities. Swinburne notes that testimonies are not the only form of evidence physical evidence (such as no bridge where someone was said to walk on water) should be considered.

Finally, I think that Hume is right about every religion basing itself on a miracle, and they cannot all be true. Swinburne highlights that the notion of Christianity stating that Jesus was crucified and Islam saying that it was Judas is not a contradiction as in both traditions, Jesus is protected from death which showcases God s power. However, I think that this is a problem as Christianity relies on the crucifixion of Jesus, and if this was false, there would be detrimental impacts for believers.

To conclude, I think that Hume is wrong about miracles to a large extent as his argument lacks specificity and he fails to recognise that natural laws are descri ptive they do not predict future events they are just what has been previously observed. However, Hume makes valid points about competing miracles cancelling each other out and the possible contradiction of miracles with God s nature. Although, these ideas are not enough to fully convince me that Hume is right about miracles.