Miracle of Miracles

    David Hume’s “An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding” is one of the heaviest texts I’ve read in Great Books so far. Within his work, he explores topics such as why people think the way that the do and calls into question many different religious practices. However, one of his most controversial points is his stand of miracles. Hume does not believe in miracles, and he dedicates the tenth section of his work to discussing different reasons why miracles are false.
    Hume begins by defining a miracle as a “violation of the laws of nature” (83). Our perception of the laws of nature are defined by our personal experiences with nature. The greater the number of observations we have of an effect, the more we are steadfast in our belief that a certain effect will always follow a certain cause. It is the experiences we have had personally that attest to the truth of something. In discussing the reliability of human testimony in regards to miracles, Hume says, “It is experience only, which gives authority to human testimony; and it is the same experience, which assures us of the laws of nature” (92). We compare what we have heard is true to what we know is true to see if the two line up. When something happens that seems in contradiction to the course of nature we have observed, we don’t accept it immediately as truth. We observe God through what we see in the usual course of nature, therefore Hume says we cannot attribute miracles to Him since they are not in accordance to what we see in nature (93).
    In part two of his discussion of reality of miracles, Hume opens by calling into question the credibility of people who attest to the truth of miracles (84). Hume lists certain traits that must be present within men in order for us to believe their testimony; these men must be well-educated and possess good sense and a high reputation built on integrity. These men must have such undoubted integrity that they would be kept honest by fear of being found speaking false things (84). Hume also says that the miracle has to have taken place in a very public venue so that it was seen by many people.
Beyond questioning the character of people, Hume points out that there are some who use miraculous accounts to promote themselves. In exploring the motives for people to twist the truth and deceive people, Hume says, “But what greater temptation than to appear a missionary, a prophet, an ambassador from heaven? Who would not encounter many dangers and difficulties, in order to attain so sublime of a character?” (91). The desire to be famous and successful is strong, so we cannot believe everyone who claims to have witnessed a miracle. A person could be ignorant of the falsity of what they are proclaiming to people. However, there are people who will continue to attest to the truth in miracles and signs even after being proven wrong. These religionists may believe they’re promoting holiness by justifying how many people they convince through their lies; or they may just be unwilling to admit they were wrong (85). Vanity, operating within these people stronger than in any others, causes the continuation of the proclamation of these false testimonies. And it is the conviction with which these certain people spread these lies that Hume says is especially dangerous. When people of wisdom try to investigate and expose the lies of the false testimonies, the passion of the liar overpowers the credibility of the people trying to shed some light on the matter. According to Hume, we cannot believe the testimony of men because they are only looking out for their own benefit. However, it makes me wonder what the apostles gained from never wavering on their belief in Jesus or in their proclaiming Him to all people publicly. They would have been saved a lot of pain if they had just denied who Jesus was and what He did.
    The second argument Hume presents against miracles is based upon the supposed gullibility of the common man. Hume says that we readily believe something is true if it inspires awe and wonder in us (84). Usually we relate things we don’t know to the things we do know in order to see if the two agree. If they don’t agree, we choose the cause that we have observed more often because it is more probable to us. When it comes to miracles, however, Hume says we get caught up in the moment. He claims, “The passion of surprise and wonder, arising from miracles, being an agreeable emotion, gives a sensible tendency towards the belief of those events, from which it is derived” (84). Apparently we are so rational and careful with our opinions, except when it comes to things that seem supernatural. We believe that since the emotion attributed to witnessing the miracle made us feel good the miracle itself must be true.
The place of origin of stories of miracles and the people who spread the stories is the third reason Hume gives to refute miracles. Hume believes that legends of miracles began and primarily spread in what he calls “ignorant and barbarous nations” (86). People used to attribute events such as earthquakes or plagues to some supernatural force lashing out against the people. The custom of sacrifices, whether people or animals, is based on the practice of appeasing the supposed gods. The further along people progress, the fewer the accounts of miraculous events become. Hume attributes this decrease to humanity’s growing knowledge of the customs of nature and the world around us. As we come to know more about the science of why things happen the way that they do, we believe less of the supposed impossible.
    The fourth reason Hume gives against the credibility of miracle is that there is not one that is unopposed (87). Opposition comes not only from those who don’t believe at all, but also from different religions. The opposition is apparently so great that all testimonies for miracles are discredited, even the ones your religion is based off of. “In destroying a rival system, it likewise destroys the credit of those miracles, on which that system was established” (88). Different religions are based upon different miracles, and by discrediting someone else’s miracle, you are indirectly discrediting your own.
    Hume makes some very logical points questioning the truth of miracles. He uses reason to come to conclusions that make sense. However, I have found two flaws in his argument against truth of miracles. The first flaw is how he defines the laws of nature. Our laws of nature are based on patterns we have observed, patterns that could change at any time. In discussing chance and probability, Hume says that once we get accustomed to a certain effect following a cause, we will hold fast to this truth we have observed. However, Hume does admit that there are certain causes which are more irregular or certain. If the laws of nature are what we humans have observed to usually be true, then it is possible that they may not continue to be as we have observed them. The second flaw I find in his argument is his definition of miracles. Hume defines miracles are violations of natural order of the law, but this statement contradicts itself. Miracles are not a violation of nature’s laws because God set the laws into place, and to violate His laws would be to violate Himself. God won’t break His own laws, therefore the definition of miracles must be different. Could it be that miracles are nature’s way of responding to the presence and power of God and Jesus? The bush that burned in the wilderness but wasn’t consumed was displaying the presence of God. When Jesus walked on the water, nature responded truthfully to the presence of its Creator. We may not understand how miracles are possible, but that doesn’t mean they are any less true. It is through faith that we believe they happened. “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose the world itself could not contain the books that would be written,” John 21:25.

It's All in Your Head

We have finally reached the period of enlightenment! I am so ready to read the works of people who have a belief in God as their basis. Pascal and Descartes are the two authors I’ve read so far in Great Books this semester. Both authors wrote during the 17th century and explore topics such as reason and imagination. However, Pascal and Descartes have very different views on the faculties of imagination and reason. Both reason and imagination are very important as they help shape how we view and handle situations. I believe that reason and imagination can be used in conjunction, and it is through employing both that a person can make good decisions and lead a happy life.

According to Pascal, imagination is the true controller of people. In his book Human Happiness, Pascal says, “Imagination decides everything: it creates beauty, justice and happiness” (Human Happiness, p. 7). The thoughts our imaginations bring to us impacts everything from our decisions for the future to our impressions of other people. Pascal illustrates the power of imagination by discussing the long gowns and big hat physicians wear (Human Happiness, p. 6); such regal clothing doesn’t affect how well of a doctor someone is, but it often decides how much respect he commands. Pascal does not think anyone is safe from the effects of imagination. Imagination is apparently so powerful it can control even the wisest of men (Human Happiness, p. 4). No matter how much reason may try to object, it is in vain. One of the problems with imagination being in control is that it leads us to believe things that aren’t true. Pascal describes it as the “master of error and falsehood” (Human Happiness, p.3). Imagination is faulty because it relies solely on circumstances inside the head that we create, instead of focusing on outside factors.

Pascal has an interesting point of view on the effects of imagination on people’s happiness. He believes that people who rely on imagination are happier than people who attempt to rely on reason. He says “Those who are clever in imagination are for more pleased with themselves than prudent men could reasonably be” (Human Happiness, p. 4). It is easy to understand how those who live in their imagination and follow their impulses would seem happier than people who have reason to guide their decisions. However, I believe this happiness is only short term. If you live in your head for too long, it’s going to be extremely difficult for anyone outside to connect with you.

Pascal believes that in the battle between reason and imagination, reason is more often than not on the losing side. “Reason never wholly overcomes imagination, while the contrary is quite common” (Human Happiness, p. 6). We are more inclined to listen to imagination than reason because we have an immediate access to imagination. Proper reason takes time to consider many different factors. Pascal also believes a that every action of man is motivated by imagination, therefore reason must become more like imagination in order to to be used (Human Happiness, p.6). Pascal even goes so far as to say that anyone who follows reason alone is a fool. I think what Pascal is saying is that reason must be willing to explore all options; just as there are no limits to imagination, reason should be willing to consider all the options. I don’t like the idea of reason changing to look like imagination, however, the most powerful argument Pascal makes on imagination over reason is that we can’t reach God through reason. It is faith moving our hearts that leads us to Him (Human Happiness, p. 20-21). Reason will only take us so far because we can’t completely prove the existence of God. If we could, there would be no need for faith.

Descartes has a very different view on reason and imagination. Descartes believes that reason can overcome imagination if the person takes the time to find the truth in the thought. Even though all of our thoughts come from God, and everything that comes from Him is truth, our imagination can trick us if we don’t use reason to discover truth in the thought. “We ought never to let ourselves be convinced except on the evidence of our reason” (A Discourse on the Method, p. 34). Descartes uses the example of sense when illustrating this point. We know the sun isn’t as small as it looks to us on earth because logically it is the distance that clouds our senses. Descartes also believes that imagination is the wrong tool with which to seek God. He compares people who seek God using their imagination to those who try to use their eyes to hear or smell. “Neither our imagination nor our senses could ever confirm the existence of anything, if our intellect did not get to play its part” (A Discourse on the Method, p. 32). However, I believe that imagination has to be in control at some point. We use make logical conclusions about the existence of God in order to make it to a certain point before faith can take over.

A unique characteristic of human beings is our ability to reason. If we didn’t use reason, we would do things just for our desires in that moment without thinking of the consequences; we would live in constant state of disillusion. God has instilled the faculty of reason in each of us, and we must decide if we’re going to use it or let it go stale and follow only the imagination. On the other hand, God also gave each of us an imagination so He must have intended for us to use it. I believe our imagination allows us to explore new ideas and open up our creative sides, but reason is needed to keep it in check. In comparing the ideals of Pascal and Descartes, it’s important to keep in mind the audience and the reason each gentleman is writing. Pascal’s view of imagination seems to me to be more of what he’s observed, not necessarily what people should practice. Descartes’ whole system of determining what principles are true by reasoning them out so that he can practice and inform people of the truest principles. By combining reason and imagination, we can have big dreams while also staying grounded in the truth.