Was Hume right to think that one should never believe that a miracle has taken place based on testimony?
My first task in addressing this question was to analyze Hume’s definition of ‘miracle’ and ‘testimony.’ Hume asserts that a miracle is ‘… a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws… nothing is esteemed a miracle if it happens in the common course of nature’ (Hume, Miracles, P. 114-5) And ‘… a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent’ (Hume, Miracles, P. 115). We may understand the term ‘testimony’ to mean either the written or oral account of an observed event. In ‘Miracles’ Hume considers three forms of testimony; of the human, of the senses and memory, and of God. The term ‘Laws of Nature’ is perhaps more difficult to comprehend. Whilst the concept of natural law had existed for some considerable time in history, John Locke (1632–1704) brought to it a definitive form. Locke emphasized natural law as a system, maintaining particular moral truths applicable to all people universally. Natural law is made distinct from the ‘divine’ law promoted by religion (Tuckness, Locke’s Political Philosophy. 2010). We may summarize the concept of natural law as a condition created by the Deity enabling harmony and social accord. It appears, in Hume’s argument any intervention in this state of the world by the Deity would amount to a violation or transgression.
I came to understand that Hume’s essay on miracles is placed centrally in the context of the philosophy of religion, theology and the Deist controversy that arose in the 18th century (English Deism; David Hume. IEP). Hume assumes the Deist position with regard to miracles and expands his argument along those lines. Deism is defined as; “God created the world, endowed it with the ability to function without the need for his continuing presence or interference” (McGrath, Christian Theology, p. 285). Hume concedes, in his definition of miracles to the presence of a supreme, divine authority, to the creation of a system of universal organization, but denies that such an (invisible) agent would necessarily intervene in the world. The Deist view was a rejection of any miraculous event not on the basis of human testimony, which could be regarded as a product of the imagination, but that it fundamentally contradicts the limitations imposed by the Deity. The Christian theologian argues for the miracle as proof of God, for example in the Doctrine of the Resurrection – the key element and most important facet of faith (Felton, Resurrection, 1734), whereas Hume denies the miracle as ‘proof’ of the existence of, or a ‘sign’ from God.
In conclusion, Hume measures testimony against the predictable regularity of the ‘law of nature’ with regard to the authenticity of the occurrence of any (unusual event) miracle. Hume does not necessarily reject miracles on their basis as isolated events, since he is unable to establish them as a cause. The only effect that he determines is the testimony given of them by human witness, which he dispels as inadequate. He concludes that the ‘miracle’ is a personal experience rather than one that demands testimony.
“Our most holy religion is founded on faith not reason… mere reason is insufficient to convince us of its veracity: And whoever is moved by faith to assent to it, is conscious of a continued miracle in his own person…” (Hume, Miracles p. 130-1)
Even in the example of the miracle of resurrection “that a dead man should come to life…” (Hume, Miracles. P. 115) Hume cannot offer proof that this is not possible or a probability. Contrary to his assertion, a human can die according to the medical definition and, for no apparent reason explainable by science come back to life (Adhiyaman… The Lazarus Syndrome. 2007). This leads us to understand events not as isolated incidents, the dynamics of the world cannot be contained within a regulated system – but to consider processes, death and a process rather than an event. In this light all events are processes that possess variable outcomes. Hume was incorrect to think that a miracle should be disregarded on the basis of testimony, testimony is evidence. Without testimony there is no argument.
Hume, David, Enquiries Concerning the Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals, Volume 921, Clarendon Press, 1902
Tuckness, Alex, "Locke's Political Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/locke-political/>.
“English Deism – David Hume”, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, URL = http://www.iep.utm.edu/deismeng/
McGrath, Alistair, Christian Theology: An Introduction Third Edition, Wiley, 2001
Felton, Henry, The Scripture Doctrine of the Resurrection: As it Stood Before the Law. A Sermon Preached Before the University of Oxford, at St. Mary's, Nov. 24. 1734. Ben. Motte London, 1735
The Lazarus phenomenon Vedamurthy Adhiyaman, Sonja Adhiyaman, Radha Sundaram J R Soc Med. 2007 December; 100(12): 552–557.
All Rights Reserved & Copyright // David John Drew 2014
