DAVID HUME ON MIRACLE
INTRODUCTION
At the inception of the Renaissance period, there was a sudden shift to anthropomorphic questionings towards reality. At the death of William of Ockham, there was a general questionings into the matters concerning God.
There is a general enthronement of humanism, which tends to bring man at the center of universe. The medieval period were occupied mostly in the talk about God, giving necessary proofs in the defense of the Roman Catholic Church doctrines. The issues of miracle would no doubt also claim to show the evidence that God also intended to show people about the existence of the Messiah. (cf John 20:30).
The philosopher David Hume in his own time questioned the validity of miracle. At the same time, scientists generally dismiss the possibility of miracle occurring. They believed that the regularity, order, and balance of the laws of nature would be disturbed if miracles are realities.
On the contrary perspective, some people would obviously believe in miracle because they see it as “an event caused by supernatural being, which runs contrary to expected modes of behavior or laws of nature (it contravenes the normal system of things). C. Stephen Evans would say that since God is the sustainer of all things, this must mean that God is always involved with and inside his creation.
On this juncture, I would like to briefly delineate Aquinas notion of miracle for us to understand fully the arguments of Hume in relation with Arch-bishop Tillotson critique on the real presence.
THOMAS AQUINAS ON MIRACLE
Aquinas in his discussion in “the harmony of faith and reason” argued that the Christians do not believe foolishly the religious claims that cannot be established by reason. The evidence of the claims about miracle is based on the fact that those who have told us of them performed miracles. Miracles according to Aquinas give evidence that those who perform them have access to supernatural powers because they “are works that surpass the ability of all nature”. Aquinas’ view is such that the evidence of the miracles was given by the apostles who were eye-witnesses to it and as well performed miracles.
Thomas Aquinas had offered a similar definition of a miracle to that of Hume, defining it as, 'those things which are done by Divine power apart from the order generally followed in things'. However, he actually differed from the latter Humean definition as he said miracles were also:
• 'Those events in which something is done by God which nature could never do.'
• 'Events in which God does something which nature can do, but not in that order.'
• 'When God does what is usually done by the working of nature, but without the operation of the principles of nature.'
What is noticeable about Aquinas' understanding of miracles is that he allowed for the possibility of miracles to occur within the 'system' of 'natural activity' (something Hume's definition would leave out). Aquinas also allowed for the possibility that God's activity with the natural realm, may be part of the normal order of things. However, this begs the question; if God is acting within the normal order of things, how do we know when (or if) a miracle has occurred?
HUME’S ARGUMENTS AGAINST MIRACLE
Hume defines miracle as a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity or by the interposition of some invisible agent. The above definition nonetheless portrays some contrariness of miracle to natural course of things. Thus, any event which adequately happens in relation to natural course of things could not be described as miracle. Hume tried to create a link between the concepts of laws of nature with uniform human experience. Therefore, in the state of nature, events related to human experience enjoys the highest degree of certainty. Hume strongly believes that no proof is more veritable than that of collective human experience.
Hume drew another line of argument in supposing that no personal experience is sufficient to establish the certainty of miracle. The greater the miracle seems to be, it opens itself more to be rejected. The fact of miracle has no foundation in reality and thus it does not exist. According to Hume, no matter how strong the evidence for a specific miracle may be, it will always be more rational to reject the miracle than to believe in it.
Hume noted that there are two factors to assess in deciding whether to believe any given piece of testimony: the reliability of the witness and the probability of that to which they testify.
The testimony of a witness that is both honest and a good judge of that to which they testify is worth much. The testimony of a witness who is either dishonest or not in a position to know that to which they testify is worth little. The reliability of the witness is therefore something that is to be taken into account in deciding whether to believe anything on the basis of testimony.
The probability of that to which they testify, however, is also relevant. If a witness testifies to sighting a flying pig then it is more likely that their testimony is false than that their testimony is true, even if they are a reliable witness. The reliability required of a witness in order for his testimony to justify belief in that to which he testifies increases as the probability of that to which he testifies decreases.
Hume would progress in his argument to associate the evidence (false ) for miracle with people whose education, learning and good sense are questionable and thus end up in providing illusionary effect on reality. Some religion would use these unusual metaphysical concepts to trill people in believing in such religion. This, Hume considers as deception. Among civilized people, the notion of miracle is not conceived. It only prevails among ignorant and barbarous nations. There are many religions in existence which teach contradictory doctrines, they use miracle to support their contrary claims and doctrines. Hume sees it as a matter of deception.Hume sketches some accounts of purported miracles outside of the canonical Christian scriptures—two cures ascribed to Vespasian, one Catholic miracle reported to have been worked at Saragossa, and some cures ascribed to the influence of the tomb of the Jansenist Abbe Paris in the early 1700s—and suggests that their affidavits are in various respects as good as one could wish for. Hume clearly expects his Protestant readers to reject these stories with disdain. He leaves unstated the obvious conclusion: by parity, his readers should also reject the miracles of the New Testament.
Setting Protestants and Catholics by the ears over the miracles of later ecclesiastical history was an old game by Hume's time, and a small industry had grown up on the Protestant side providing criteria for sifting the genuine apostolic miracles from their Catholic counterfeits. Hume's contemporary critics rose to the challenge and argued vigorously that his descriptions of the alleged “miracles,” Pagan, Catholic, and Jansenist, distorted the historical sources and were hopelessly one sided
All attempts to draw an evidential parallel between the miracles of the New Testament and the miracle stories of later ecclesiastical history are therefore dubious. There are simply more resources for explaining how the ecclesiastical stories, which were promoted to an established and favorably disposed audience, could have arisen and been believed without there being any truth to the reports.
Hume’s conclusion is not that miracles do not happen. Rather, his conclusion is that no evidence is sufficient to establish that a miracle has occurred, that even if a miracle has occurred we ought not to believe in it.
CRITICISM OF HUME’S NOTION OF MIRACLE
Hume's argument seems quite formidable- but it's not without its problems. Whenever someone asks if miracles are probable (or believable) they are really asking if there is a God, and that is the crux of the problem. Hume at the start of his inquiry dismisses God as a criterion for support. Hume says we should judge miracles only on the basis of natural evidence - what we find occurring in nature as repeatable. The less common an instance, the less rational it is to believe.
If one assumes that nature is the standard for judging the reasonableness of an event occurring, then Hume may have a point. But by assuming this, one assumes there is no God that rules over nature. What he does is in effect is beg the question.
The belief in miracles is not illogical at all. Hume has made an argument that starts with a denial of a God who can work outside nature, then he goes on to argue that it is unreasonable to believe in violating nature's laws because it is unusual. But, we have seen that both counts of this argument are flawed
The other problem with Hume's argument is it is so sweeping in scope; it proves too much. According to Hume, any event that would be considered singular in nature (unrepeatable) is by definition irrational to hold. Yet, this cannot be. Take for example the creation of the universe. The universe began to exist or it has existed for infinity. Now, an infinitely existing universe is illogical. However, Hume would state that a universe that had a beginning is also illogical. Thus we are left with a quandary of only two choices available to us, neither being reasonable by Hume's standards. Yet the universe is here and it is in time! It did have a beginning. Therefore, Hume must be wrong.
Norman Geisler notes that Hume's argument fails because it "equates quantity of evidence and probability. It says, in effect, that we should always believe what is the most probable. What Hume seems to overlook is that wise people base their beliefs on facts, not simply on odds. Sometime the 'odds' against an event are high (based on past observation), but the evidence for the event is otherwise very good (based on current observation or reliable testimony). Hume's argument confuses quantity of evidence with quality of evidence. Evidence should be weighed, not added."
It is an obvious fact that Hume ignores two main cases in his arguments: the first person of experience of claimed miracle and the miracles for which the evidence is not the testimony of witnesses alone, but a continuing object or phenomenon. However, the strength of the objection in the former is diminished by the need to rely on subjective experience and interpretation, which is very unreliable and open to bias and illusion and is unacceptable by itself in scientific investigation. The strength of objection in the latter is also diminished if it is merely relying on a lack of a natural explanation; such an argument commits the informal logical fallacy of argument from ignorance, as no actual explanation of alleged miracle is provided.
Some writers, such as R.F. Holland, have argued that Hume’s definition of Miracle need not to be accepted, and that an event need not violate a natural law in order to be accounted miraculous. Consequently certain critics such as George Campbell argued that Hume’s argument is circular. That is, he rests his case against belief in miracles upon the claim that laws of nature are supported by exceptionless testimony, but testimony can only be accounted exceptionless if we discount the occurrence of miracle.
CONCLUSION
It is very crucial to state that Hume’s empirical statements on miracle are not without fault. He seems not to be universal in his line of thought. In as much he is an atheist, how could he convince those who believe in God about such universal fact? Hume would use some derogatory words on the religion, saying that they are enthusiast and thereby deceiving people. The fact of miracle is about personal experience with the supernatural being.
At the inception of the Renaissance period, there was a sudden shift to anthropomorphic questionings towards reality. At the death of William of Ockham, there was a general questionings into the matters concerning God.
There is a general enthronement of humanism, which tends to bring man at the center of universe. The medieval period were occupied mostly in the talk about God, giving necessary proofs in the defense of the Roman Catholic Church doctrines. The issues of miracle would no doubt also claim to show the evidence that God also intended to show people about the existence of the Messiah. (cf John 20:30).
The philosopher David Hume in his own time questioned the validity of miracle. At the same time, scientists generally dismiss the possibility of miracle occurring. They believed that the regularity, order, and balance of the laws of nature would be disturbed if miracles are realities.
On the contrary perspective, some people would obviously believe in miracle because they see it as “an event caused by supernatural being, which runs contrary to expected modes of behavior or laws of nature (it contravenes the normal system of things). C. Stephen Evans would say that since God is the sustainer of all things, this must mean that God is always involved with and inside his creation.
On this juncture, I would like to briefly delineate Aquinas notion of miracle for us to understand fully the arguments of Hume in relation with Arch-bishop Tillotson critique on the real presence.
THOMAS AQUINAS ON MIRACLE
Aquinas in his discussion in “the harmony of faith and reason” argued that the Christians do not believe foolishly the religious claims that cannot be established by reason. The evidence of the claims about miracle is based on the fact that those who have told us of them performed miracles. Miracles according to Aquinas give evidence that those who perform them have access to supernatural powers because they “are works that surpass the ability of all nature”. Aquinas’ view is such that the evidence of the miracles was given by the apostles who were eye-witnesses to it and as well performed miracles.
Thomas Aquinas had offered a similar definition of a miracle to that of Hume, defining it as, 'those things which are done by Divine power apart from the order generally followed in things'. However, he actually differed from the latter Humean definition as he said miracles were also:
• 'Those events in which something is done by God which nature could never do.'
• 'Events in which God does something which nature can do, but not in that order.'
• 'When God does what is usually done by the working of nature, but without the operation of the principles of nature.'
What is noticeable about Aquinas' understanding of miracles is that he allowed for the possibility of miracles to occur within the 'system' of 'natural activity' (something Hume's definition would leave out). Aquinas also allowed for the possibility that God's activity with the natural realm, may be part of the normal order of things. However, this begs the question; if God is acting within the normal order of things, how do we know when (or if) a miracle has occurred?
HUME’S ARGUMENTS AGAINST MIRACLE
Hume defines miracle as a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity or by the interposition of some invisible agent. The above definition nonetheless portrays some contrariness of miracle to natural course of things. Thus, any event which adequately happens in relation to natural course of things could not be described as miracle. Hume tried to create a link between the concepts of laws of nature with uniform human experience. Therefore, in the state of nature, events related to human experience enjoys the highest degree of certainty. Hume strongly believes that no proof is more veritable than that of collective human experience.
Hume drew another line of argument in supposing that no personal experience is sufficient to establish the certainty of miracle. The greater the miracle seems to be, it opens itself more to be rejected. The fact of miracle has no foundation in reality and thus it does not exist. According to Hume, no matter how strong the evidence for a specific miracle may be, it will always be more rational to reject the miracle than to believe in it.
Hume noted that there are two factors to assess in deciding whether to believe any given piece of testimony: the reliability of the witness and the probability of that to which they testify.
The testimony of a witness that is both honest and a good judge of that to which they testify is worth much. The testimony of a witness who is either dishonest or not in a position to know that to which they testify is worth little. The reliability of the witness is therefore something that is to be taken into account in deciding whether to believe anything on the basis of testimony.
The probability of that to which they testify, however, is also relevant. If a witness testifies to sighting a flying pig then it is more likely that their testimony is false than that their testimony is true, even if they are a reliable witness. The reliability required of a witness in order for his testimony to justify belief in that to which he testifies increases as the probability of that to which he testifies decreases.
Hume would progress in his argument to associate the evidence (false ) for miracle with people whose education, learning and good sense are questionable and thus end up in providing illusionary effect on reality. Some religion would use these unusual metaphysical concepts to trill people in believing in such religion. This, Hume considers as deception. Among civilized people, the notion of miracle is not conceived. It only prevails among ignorant and barbarous nations. There are many religions in existence which teach contradictory doctrines, they use miracle to support their contrary claims and doctrines. Hume sees it as a matter of deception.Hume sketches some accounts of purported miracles outside of the canonical Christian scriptures—two cures ascribed to Vespasian, one Catholic miracle reported to have been worked at Saragossa, and some cures ascribed to the influence of the tomb of the Jansenist Abbe Paris in the early 1700s—and suggests that their affidavits are in various respects as good as one could wish for. Hume clearly expects his Protestant readers to reject these stories with disdain. He leaves unstated the obvious conclusion: by parity, his readers should also reject the miracles of the New Testament.
Setting Protestants and Catholics by the ears over the miracles of later ecclesiastical history was an old game by Hume's time, and a small industry had grown up on the Protestant side providing criteria for sifting the genuine apostolic miracles from their Catholic counterfeits. Hume's contemporary critics rose to the challenge and argued vigorously that his descriptions of the alleged “miracles,” Pagan, Catholic, and Jansenist, distorted the historical sources and were hopelessly one sided
All attempts to draw an evidential parallel between the miracles of the New Testament and the miracle stories of later ecclesiastical history are therefore dubious. There are simply more resources for explaining how the ecclesiastical stories, which were promoted to an established and favorably disposed audience, could have arisen and been believed without there being any truth to the reports.
Hume’s conclusion is not that miracles do not happen. Rather, his conclusion is that no evidence is sufficient to establish that a miracle has occurred, that even if a miracle has occurred we ought not to believe in it.
CRITICISM OF HUME’S NOTION OF MIRACLE
Hume's argument seems quite formidable- but it's not without its problems. Whenever someone asks if miracles are probable (or believable) they are really asking if there is a God, and that is the crux of the problem. Hume at the start of his inquiry dismisses God as a criterion for support. Hume says we should judge miracles only on the basis of natural evidence - what we find occurring in nature as repeatable. The less common an instance, the less rational it is to believe.
If one assumes that nature is the standard for judging the reasonableness of an event occurring, then Hume may have a point. But by assuming this, one assumes there is no God that rules over nature. What he does is in effect is beg the question.
The belief in miracles is not illogical at all. Hume has made an argument that starts with a denial of a God who can work outside nature, then he goes on to argue that it is unreasonable to believe in violating nature's laws because it is unusual. But, we have seen that both counts of this argument are flawed
The other problem with Hume's argument is it is so sweeping in scope; it proves too much. According to Hume, any event that would be considered singular in nature (unrepeatable) is by definition irrational to hold. Yet, this cannot be. Take for example the creation of the universe. The universe began to exist or it has existed for infinity. Now, an infinitely existing universe is illogical. However, Hume would state that a universe that had a beginning is also illogical. Thus we are left with a quandary of only two choices available to us, neither being reasonable by Hume's standards. Yet the universe is here and it is in time! It did have a beginning. Therefore, Hume must be wrong.
Norman Geisler notes that Hume's argument fails because it "equates quantity of evidence and probability. It says, in effect, that we should always believe what is the most probable. What Hume seems to overlook is that wise people base their beliefs on facts, not simply on odds. Sometime the 'odds' against an event are high (based on past observation), but the evidence for the event is otherwise very good (based on current observation or reliable testimony). Hume's argument confuses quantity of evidence with quality of evidence. Evidence should be weighed, not added."
It is an obvious fact that Hume ignores two main cases in his arguments: the first person of experience of claimed miracle and the miracles for which the evidence is not the testimony of witnesses alone, but a continuing object or phenomenon. However, the strength of the objection in the former is diminished by the need to rely on subjective experience and interpretation, which is very unreliable and open to bias and illusion and is unacceptable by itself in scientific investigation. The strength of objection in the latter is also diminished if it is merely relying on a lack of a natural explanation; such an argument commits the informal logical fallacy of argument from ignorance, as no actual explanation of alleged miracle is provided.
Some writers, such as R.F. Holland, have argued that Hume’s definition of Miracle need not to be accepted, and that an event need not violate a natural law in order to be accounted miraculous. Consequently certain critics such as George Campbell argued that Hume’s argument is circular. That is, he rests his case against belief in miracles upon the claim that laws of nature are supported by exceptionless testimony, but testimony can only be accounted exceptionless if we discount the occurrence of miracle.
CONCLUSION
It is very crucial to state that Hume’s empirical statements on miracle are not without fault. He seems not to be universal in his line of thought. In as much he is an atheist, how could he convince those who believe in God about such universal fact? Hume would use some derogatory words on the religion, saying that they are enthusiast and thereby deceiving people. The fact of miracle is about personal experience with the supernatural being.
Comments
Post a Comment
you are free to view your mind on this post.