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.