Transcript Hume on Miracles

Of Miracles
A vision of Jesus in the clouds?
• A six-inch-high porcelain
statue began weeping
tears of blood. The
liquid staining the image
is genuinely blood, and
human at that. The
Santiago coroner's
office pronounced the
substance is type O-4
human blood. The
statue weeps regularly,
particularly in the
presence of children."
• ( Source: The Guardian,
UK, 4 December1992 )
On 15 February a Kenyan nun, Sister
Anna Hadija Ali, spoke about her
meetings with Jesus every Thursday
since 1987. In a photograph taken in
1988, Jesus weeps blood. Since
then, every Wednesday prior to her
meeting, Sister Anna's face becomes
swollen and painful and the following
day she, too, weeps blood.
Her doctor remarked that this is an
"absolutely inexplicable phenomenon
from the scientific and human point
of view". He also commented on an
"extraordinary aroma of freshness"
she exudes during this process,
which he concluded is the "perfume
of the Christ".
Some terminology
• Epistemology – study of knowledge.
• Belief – something you hold to be true based on
reasoning, experience, testimony etc.. Your beliefs
can be true or false.
• Knowledge – objective and certain knowledge,
true regardless of our believing in it.
• Empiricism – knowledge is gained through our
sense perceptions, experience.
• Rationalism – knowledge is gained through
reasoning, no need to refer to the sensory world.
• Scepticism – nothing is certain or knowledge is
beyond our grasp.
Hume on Miracles
‘A miracle is a
violation of the laws
of nature’
David Hume 1711 - 1776
• Scottish Empiricist philosopher
• His method was Sceptical and critical
• Prominent works – ‘Inquiry Concerning Human
Understanding’ (1748); ‘Inquiry Concerning the
Principles of Morals’ (1751). Key essay ‘Of
Miracles’.
• It was a widely held thought at the time amongst
Christian thinkers that miracles were proof of
revelation and therefore proof of the claims of a
religion.
Hume on Testimony
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The accounts or testimony of others allow us to form
beliefs and may contribute to our knowledge. However as
Hume points out testimony has at times been unreliable
and false, therefore we must view reports of the
miraculous critically:
Is there a contrary testimony?
What is the character of the witness?
How many witnesses were there?
How they delivered their testimony.
Does the witness have an interest in what they claim?
We like to tell and hear remarkable stories.
Testimonies often come from those less enlightened.
That is not to say that
they should be
disregarded. We are
generally trusting of
testimony because it
frequently conforms to
reality.
However, when that
testimony concerns
something rarely
observed it become a
more challenging
proposal.
‘The Indian Prince’
• An Indian Prince who had
never experienced the
cold rejected accounts of
the effects of frost due to
his limited experience.
The description did not
contradict his
understanding but did not
conform to it either.
• This example raises a
problem with experience ours will always be
limited so we might draw
false conclusions.
The heart of Hume’s argument
Wise Men
‘Wise men proportion their belief to the evidence’
By this Hume meant that we should believe in that which
has happened the most often or has the greatest weight of
evidence in its favour.
If there is significant or infallible evidence as a basis then
we can proceed with confidence.
The more there is evidence to the contrary then the more
cautious should we be.
Hume argued that the laws of nature themselves were
extremely strong evidence from experience.
‘A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and
as firm and unalterable experience has established
these laws, the proof against a miracle...is as entire
as any argument from experience can possibly be
imagined.’
Catch 22 for miracles
To identify a miracle we must compare it to the uniform
laws it appears to break. However in doing so we
highlight the evidence against the miracle – which is
more substantial and therefore overthrows the proposed
miracle. So another explanation, in keeping with the
laws of nature, must be sought.
Always reject the greater miracle
• In doing so one is following the greatest weight of
evidence and rejecting the most unlikely scenario.
• This means that ONLY if the opposite of a
miraculous account were MORE miraculous could
that original account be taken as reliable;
‘..no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle,
unless..its falsehood would be more miraculous
(than its truth)’
and to religion...
• ‘...no human testimony can have such force
as to prove a miracle, and make it a
foundation for any such system of religion.’
• Hume does accept the possibility of
miracles but not that there is any evidence
for them, and as knowledge for Hume is
based on observable evidence we can have
no knowledge of the existence of miracles.
Where do we go now?
• If the Christian faith is based on the belief
in at least one miracle (the resurrection)
• and Hume has successfully argued against
knowing that miracles exist
• how might Christians seek to defend their
faith?
Look to undermine his argument / concepts.
Possibilities
• Review definition of miracle from ‘violation’
to something working through the laws.
• Using faith accept the accounts
• Hume has only shown that we cannot have
certain knowledge that miracles do not exist,
not that they do not exist at all.
• Review understanding of ‘laws of nature’ –
as with our definition of miracles, today’s
definitions are more liberal and flexible.