That Religious Studies Website

Miracles

• Miracles: An introduction
• Miracles in the Bible (Part 1): Introduction
• Miracles in the Bible (Part 2): Issues and responses

Critiques

• David Hume: 'Of Miracles'

Philosophy of Religion

• Arguments for the Existence of God
• The Problem of Evil and Suffering
• Atheism and Agnosticism
• Immortality and Life after Death
• Miracles
• Religious Pluralism

Recently added to the site

• The Ontological Argument: Introduction and Overview (Video)
• Visit to a Cathedral (Roman Catholic)
• Revision quiz: The Ontological Argument (Anselm of Canterbury)
• Revision quiz: Design arguments for the existence of God (Judeo-Christian): Part 1
• Revision quiz: Martin Luther King Jr.: Key facts
• Worksheet: Martin Luther King Jr.: The Early Years

David Hume: 'Of Miracles' (Part 2)

Information: This is part 2 of an article reviewing some of David Hume's main arguments against miracles as presented in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, and 'Miracles and Revelation' in Gaskin, J. C. A., Hume's Philosophy of Religion, The Macmillan Press LTD, 1988. To read Part 1 click here. A version of this article was originally published on the website www.faithnet.org.uk.

The real issue is...

In his critique of miracles, Hume is essentially saying that if someone testifies to the miraculous happening, then we should not be surprised when people do not believe them. One's personal experience of say water turning into wine etc. is not within the range of his argument here, but the report of this occurrence to someone else is. Although Hume is skeptical about the idea of miracles occurring, he does not appear to rule out the possibility of them happening, nor does he seem to rule out the legitimacy of believing what we see. His argument is not about this, but about what others tell us they saw.

In theory, Hume's claim that 'that a miracle can never be proved, so as to be the foundation of a system of religion', and that 'no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle', do not count against the resurrection of Jesus actually happening (the chief 'target' of his discussion). They simply question the means by which this event (if it did occur), is able to be communicated to others. Hume himself could have witnessed the resurrection of Jesus, it is just that his arguments prevent him ever being able to tell anyone else that he did.

Hume's argument seems fairly conclusive, except that it negates any situation when a report of a miracle might be validated by several reliable and impartial witnesses (something he argues could validate a miracle as having actually occurred). For according to Hume miracles in different faiths are 'contrary facts', which cannot be reconciled without destroying one another. This means that Hume's logic can never really allow the Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus to be accepted by someone of another faith, even if impartial witnesses were available. For if they did, they would essentially be declaring their own faith to be untrue (something they will not do, nor have any reason to do).

In terms of how all this applies to Hume's chief target (the Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus), he would reject this as an event which can reliably validate the Christian faith as being true for the following reasons:

• The belief in the resurrection was spread by people who lived in a society where superstition was rife, and self-deception was common.
• The early Christians were uncultured and uncritical people, and this renders their testimony questionable.
• The early Christians had a vested interest in believing Jesus had risen from the dead.
• People in other faiths can also use stories of miraculous occurrences to validate their own faith as being true, thus leading them to be 'contrary facts'.

The bottom line (for Hume), is that we cannot rely on the record of the resurrection of Jesus in the Bible as a basis for saying that Christianity is the true faith, because 'a miracle can never be proved, so as to be the foundation of a system of religion', and 'no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish'.

Evaluation

The driving-force of Hume's argument, is the suggestion that that miraculous occurrences in a religion is intended to show the superiority (or truthfulness) of this particular religious system above all others. For example, the Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus (and the belief that the Bible is the Word of God - where this account is recorded), is said to 'prove' that the Christian faith is true. Of course, if this is true then (logically) they 'destroy' all other rival 'systems' and the validity of the miracles upon which these were built.

It should be noted that if one is seeking to justify the claim that x event occurred because it is recorded in the 'Word of God', we need to keep in mind that there are many other holy books which also claim to be the Word of God as well (E.g. Vedas, Qur'an, Guru Granth Sahib). Although each 'scripture' claims to be the Ultimate Truth, this claim is in fact cancelled-out by these other books making the same claim (leading to a form of spiritual stale-mate).

Of course, it might be said that someone rising from the dead is the only genuine test for the truthfulness of a faith, but why presume that this is the a criterion upon which to validate a faith as being true? Although the 'rising from the dead test' may satisfy Christians, it would clearly be unsatisfactory to those in non-Christian faiths. In fact, according to Hume's logic, the 'rising from the dead test' is yet another example of the unreliability of testimonies, for these would be used to justify a belief already presumed to be true!

Now all this is looking at the matter from the perspective of one religion being true, yet a more 'pluralistic approach' may be adopted which might accommodate the presence of miraculous occurrences in other religions? Hume himself was aware of this possibility, and recognised that polytheists (those who believe in many gods) in particular, 'could, it seems, allow salvation to those [in other faiths]'. Now this might work for some faiths, but in terms of Christianity things are not so accommodating. For here we have a religious system built on the premise that there is only one true God and Saviour - Jesus Christ! Thus within the limits of their religion, it is impossible for most Christians to admit that any other religion is true.

Advertisement

So it seems that Hume is right to begin with the suggestion that a miracle in one religion, is intended to be seen as a 'contrary fact' which overthrows all others. For instance, in Christianity (Hume's particular concern), miracles are said to prove that Christianity is the true faith. In fact, John's gospel even says that the miracles of Jesus have a 'unique status' in this respect, and preclude the possibility of other (genuine) miracles occurring in other faiths:

'Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.' (John 20:30-31)

However, none of this goes to prove that the miracles recorded in the Bible actually occurred (as written), or that Jesus literally rose from the dead, or even that Christianity is the true faith. If anything, all it does is to show that Christians have reasons for believing their faith to be true. Of course, the irony is that if they then attempt to support that belief by using the evidence of miracles, they fall foul of Hume's charge that they have a vested interest in this evidence being true (or reliable), and as such this 'witness' has to be discounted.

In the end it seems Hume's logic will always challenge and undermine any evidence people may use to support the belief that their faith is true.

Final thoughts

In our own experience there tends to be an automatic distrust of things which are 'out of the ordinary', but this is no basis on which to say that extra-ordinary events never occur (or have occurred). It might be true that Jesus rose from the dead, just as it might be true that spaceships crashed in Roswell in 1947. The fact that someone testifies to the extraordinary occurring (or they are not a 'wise man'), does not mean their testimony should be discredited.

Culture and intelligence do not automatically make people wise, nor do they produce people who are able to make critically viable assessments of each situation. However, Hume's essential point must be acknowledged. There does seem to be an a priori interest in the Apostles claiming great things about Jesus, and we should also note that it was only his followers who actually saw him alive after he was raised from the dead:

'In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.' (Acts 1:1-3 [Emphasis mine])

However, would these people have then given up their lives (and livelihood) for a lie (or a fabrication of the truth)? Either they were mad, or Jesus had literally risen from the dead, or maybe their concept and understanding of what 'resurrection' meant was different to that of a literal resurrection event? In an age where Humean scepticism is still strong, that would clearly be something for (you) the reader to decide.

Back to top