In this essay I intend to describe the
argument made by Hume in his essay on miracles, identifying the
strengths and weaknesses of his position. Hume defines a miracle as a
"violation of a law of nature". By so doing Hume excludes
colloquial usage such as "It's a miracle I made it on time",
or "It's a miracle the car didn't break down". His
intention appears to be to define miracles as some kind of
interference by a deity in the natural order of the world rather than
a highly improbable event.
Hume proceeds to propose a series of
arguments to suggest that miracles are impossible. Hume highlights
that by definition a law is immutable and therefore miracles cannot
occur because a laws cannot be both "violated and immutable".
Turning his attention to accounts of Biblical miracles, he
specifically makes mention of the first miracle of Jesus. Hume
asserts that our past experience has shown that water turning into
wine generally does not happen and therefore reports of it happening
should be treated with scepticism. He proposes that on a balance of
probability it is more likely that a miracle has not occurred.
With such arguments Hume suggests
that testimony or miracles should not be believed, asserting that we
could only conclude a miracle had occurred if the arguments against
were "more miraculous". He suggests that there are two
responses to such testimony. The first is to believe and the second
is to believe that the individual in question is either mistaken or
lying. Given our experience of the world, on a balance of probability
Hume suggest the appropriate response is to believe the latter.
Hume enquires further as to why god
might interfere in one situation and not another, or choose one
location or circumstance in which to act over another. In the event
that two believers were buried in an earthquake and one survived,
attributing it to his fervent prayer for salvation, it might be
concluded at best god is fickle and at worst harshly that the second
believer simply did not have faith.
In his essay on Miracles Hume
identifies the problem "How do we recognise a miracle?"
Many cultures believed (and some cultures still maintain) that
unusual behaviour, symptomatic of ill mental health, is caused by
spirit possession. With the rise of Psychological and Psychiatric
disciplines Catholic Priests now consult with mental health
professionals to first exclude the possibility of a natural
explanation before conferring any religious significance to an
individuals affliction. Hume suggest that the attribution of
religious significance to natural phenomena is the hallmark of the
failure to understand the underlying cause.
Whilst it is possible a camera may be
considered miraculous by someone from 1000 years ago, the possibility
of ignorance presents the problem of how one actually establishes
what a natural law is and then determines that it has been violated.
If we believe as Hume does that we learn about the world through
experience, by choosing to believe that rarer or unusual phenomena
did not exist we would limit our world view and our picture of the
world in which we live would be incomplete. This would seem an
illogical disdain for irregularities in the natural order of the
world, by one seeking to understand it, when further enquiry may
provide greater understanding.
Further still How does one establish
the natural laws governing highly unusual or rare phenomena (for
example ball lightning), or phenomena we are only beginning to
understand such as abiogenesis? Where our experience is severely
limited and conjecture and theory may not prove as convincing to a
specific culture as an all powerful deity or an intelligent engineer.
It is very possible therefore that the accepted belief by a society
in this instance may prove unpalatable to Hume. Hume's response might
perhaps be to suggest that "increasing knowledge and culture
would leave no room for such stories". But until the phenomena
was truly known, such a position as the former would remain one of
faith.
Critically Hume does not appear to
have arrived at his definition by mean of repeated observations of
the violation of natural laws. His argument is prescriptive rather
than descriptive. If Hume is consistent in his assertion than we
learn about the world through experience then there must be scope for
a more complete understanding of the world in which we live. Until
evidence is provided to support Hume's claim, miracles may simply be
the way we interpret phenomenon for which we have no knowledge and
experience.
In conclusion whilst Hume's arguments
are not without weakness but more importantly Hume has highlighted
important questions of philosophical significance including the
difficulties in recognising miracles, and the seemingly arbitrary
choice of god to intervene in one situation and not another. Hume's
effort also highlights the difficulty in distinguishing miracles from
improbable and rare phenomena.
