Assess Hume’s reasons for rejecting miracles (35)
For the 18th century philosopher David Hume, a miracle was a ‘violation of the laws of nature’, to which Hume argued that such miracles could not happen due to the improbability when compared to the laws of nature (probability argument). Hume equally presented a series of practical arguments that he used to show the impossibility of miracles and how their testimony are not to be trusted. Hume’s reasons for rejecting miracles raises questions such as, can a miracle testimony be trusted, and are all miracles a ‘violation of the laws of nature’? Hume’s reasons for rejecting miracles is ultimately however not a satisfactory one due to his generalizations in his practical arguments and his definition of miracles is unsatisfactory for his probable argument, since for many (such as Swinburne), natural laws are not immutable.
One of the practical arguments Hume presented for rejecting miracles is the fact that many people who observe and give testimony to miracles are ill-educated Because of this Hume suggests that the testimony of these ill-educated people are not reliable as they are not educated in the possibility of a scientific explanation of the miracle and instead just blindly trust that it must have come from God. Equally Hume commented on the fact that stories tend to circulate and get exaggerated and suggested that this gossip is in human nature, giving the example of two children who are seen together once and everyone thus assumes they are getting married. For Hume the circulation of these gossips by ill-educated people or even religious people means that the miracle in question is grossly exaggerated and thus not to be trusted.
The modern scientist Richard Dawkins agreed with Hume’s point about miracle observers and recipients being ill educated. Dawkin’s argued that the people who observe and are a part of such miracles (such as the ones at Lourdes) do not accept the possibility of a scientific answer to the miracle. It is because of this that Dawkins argues that the miracles of the Bible, such as Moses parting the Red Sea in Exodus, shows that miracle being caused by God are used to cover up what people didn’t know about the Earth. Therefore for Dawkins, Hume is correct to suggest that people observe miracles with little education in a scientific answer to miracles.
However, a number of problems arises from Hume’s argument. Many might suggest that it is difficult to precisely define when one is educated. Hume gives no method of recognizing when you have a sufficiently large group of educated people and what level of education is required when witnessing a miracle. This is significant for Hume’s argument since it shows that his reason for rejecting miracles is not specific enough as to what he means by ‘ill-educated people’. Equally, there are many examples of educated people who have had miracles acted upon them or have observed them. The survivors and the observers of the ‘Stairwell B’ miracle during the fall of the Twin Towers in which 16 people survived may be seen as perfectly educated, yet many still maintain that a miracle had occurred. This further demonstrates the vast generalizations in Hume’s criticism of miracles.
Hume further adds that miracles tend to occur in ‘ignorant and barbarous nations’. Hume argued that if you look at the history of countries, their earliest stories are full of miracles and strange happenings, but as the country develops these sorts of stories tend to disappear. Therefore for Hume, these earlier nations are to ill educated to understand the truth in a miracle as they are too primitive to fully comprehend the scientific side to the miracles occurrence. Later in his essays about miracles Hume discussed some parts of the Bible as the long life of Adam and he concluded that none of these events that violate the laws of nature are probable as this would imply that the laws of nature are false, so the people who saw these ‘miracles’ in these ignorant nations must instead be false.
However the Philosopher Swinburne addressed what Hume considered an ‘ignorant and barbarous nation’ and stated that it could mean that people lack a familiarity with science, but this does not help Hume’s argument as many people today are undoubtedly educated and yet still claim to experience and see miracles. For example, with the Jeanne Fretal case, who was declared incurable by her doctor for tuberculosis and later (after travelling to Lourdes) her doctor claimed that she was ‘completely cured’. For Swinburne, the doctor is obviously intelligent, so therefore it is wrong for Hume to assume that everyone in such a nation is ‘barbarous’. This is significant to Hume’s argument as it again exposes the generalizations in his argument and that ultimately