Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Hume’s challenges to miracles and consider the religious response to them.

David Hume was a philosopher at the very core of the Scottish Enlightenment in the 18th century. His views challenged the belief that religion and the existence of God are the answers to anything science can not explain, i.e. God of the Gaps. In particular he dissected the idea that miracles are the result of God’s intervention stating that a miracle is “A transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity or by the interposition of some invisible agent”. In simpler terms, Hume is defining a miracle as something that breaks a natural law because of the intervention of an exterior influence, not necessarily God.

Hume created three main arguments that challenged the existence of miracles. The first focuses on the opinion that there has never been “…in all history any miracle attested by a sufficient number of men of such unquestioned good- sense, education and earning” to be relied upon to give a valid account. In biblical terms this seems to be a fair point, for example Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead after four days in front of a crowd of people in Bethany; whilst this can not be proved or disproved the people within that crowd would have been farmers or fishermen, uneducated and illiterate and Hume’s point is that this is how miracles are accounted for in the majority of the bible, in front of a large but seemingly unreliable witness. Thus, Hume wondered why miracles never seemed to occur in the presence of well-educated men such as himself. If even the most highly respected and educated men of the time had been ignorant only a hundred years before the revolution of science does it not then seem logical to state that humble peasants thousands of years ago can not be a reliable source? However, religion does not require logic and it can be argued that intelligence does not determine reliability. It is true that in most cases in the bible miracles were performed in front of a crowd and therefore the quantity should overrule the quality of the source. The resurrection of Jesus is the foundation of Christianity, a religion that millions of people believe, regardless of their intelligence or status. How then can Hume state that the witnesses are “insufficient”, whilst it is true that Christians were not actually present at the resurrection of Jesus the fact remains that millions have the faith to believe in them and who is to say that the “invisible agent” is not God?

“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”. This quote presents the idea that if people believe in miracles then whenever a wondrous thing happens they will automatically refer to it as a miracle because they want to believe it is. If a woman who has been told she can never have a baby then conceives, many would view this as a miracle, getting caught up in the emotion but forgetting the factors that may have caused it; there is an element of human error involved as well as the biological aspect that is completely unpredictable. Thus, while highly unlikely there is always still a chance. However, Hume’s statement is hypocritical as you could say that he is being unsympathetic towards miracles and by not believing in them is being biased himself. An example that disproves Hume’s idea is that of St Paul who converted to Christianity after Jesus performed a miracle. Surely this is a credible source as this miracle convinced him enough to become possibly the most prominent follower of Jesus.

Hume also believes that, much like the witnesses, the countries in which these miracles supposedly occur are “abound among ignorant and barbarous nations”. It is true that miracles tend to happen in rural areas of far humbler surroundings than the city of Edinburgh at the time. However what is to say that God intervened there as those people were in more need of a miracle than those who are privileged? The context of the time is important also in this case as Hume worked during the enlightenment, the name itself gives away the analogy that everything beforehand had been thwarted by darkness and ignorance. Within this Hume shows his own ignorance in that, compared to himself and the educated environment he is used to of course every other nation is going to be far more ignorant, the majority of people I his time were still workers and did not have the opportunities he did. Religion for many gave them something to live for and how does Hume have the right to question it? After all billions of people believe in miracles whilst few shared his view and thus he seemed the ignorant minority at the time.

His final challenge is in that of opposing religions and how that although miracles are present in all religions neither one can accept a miracle from another as it would disprove their own. “Every miracle, therefore, pretended to have been wrought in any of these religions…as its direct scope to establish the particular system to which it is attributed, so it has the same forces…to overthrow every other system. In destroying a rival system, it likewise destroys the credit of those miracles, on which that system was established”. Whilst Hume thought that as not all of these religions can be right they must all be wrong there is surely more evidence to prove miracles as each religion seems to have examples, for example Jews believe Moses led them across the Red Sea because they were the chosen ones, and so regardless of the faith miracles seem to exist.

Whilst many of Hume’s arguments are close-minded to anything other than the educated world he lives in I believe his most valid point is that of wanting miracles to be true and thus fabricating them from positive and unpredicted events. This idea can be applied to any religion and poses the question over whether miracles really are the intervention of God or just what we perceive them to be. There seems no reason however to not incorporate both Hume’s ideas and religion as there is no proof that one who prays for a miracle and then receives it has not witnessed the intervention of God as much as a person who does not believe in miracles and then is saved from death quite inexplicably has not played a part in a miracle of pure luck/chance.

Miracles

What is a miracle?
The concept of the miraculous has captured the imagination of even non-religious believers and has become a synonym for a surprising and seemingly lucky event. Religious believers on the other hand find a deeper significance, using the miraculous to provide evidence for the existence of God and his continuous involvement within the universe and the relationship he shares with humans.

David Hume defines miracles as

"A transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity or by the interposition of some invisible agent."

Richard Swinburne offers examples of such violations of natural law from evidence in the bible;
- "Resurrection from the dead"
- "Water turning into wine"
- "[A] man getting better from polio in a minute"

Whilst science may offer explanations for all such events Swinburne argues that it is the timescale and instantaneous spontaneity of the event that makes it a miracle. He does however also cliam that for an event to be miraculous it has to hold some religious significance rather than "Upset[ting] a child's toy box" which would indeed fit with Hume's definition of a miracle but would indeed have no significance or portray the nature of God as all powerful and all loving.

What do miracles tell us about God?
The view that God intervenes in the world is in keeping the the THEISTIC understanding of an IMMANENT God, one who is constantly involved.

Aquinas determined 3 different types of interaction that an immanent God would provide;
1. SUSTAINER - The continuation of Earth relying on God's intervention.
2. PRIMARY ACTIONS - i.e. Miracles, an interaction that changes a course.
3. SECONDARY ACTIONS - Refers to how God maintains his "will" within us.

It is worth pointing out that miracles are VIOLATIONS OF NATURE. God's intervention is therefore a violation of his own laws to bring about his will which suggests that he has not created a predetermined plan and therefore arguably may not be the one who determined everything in the first place! This poses a question susceptible to much debate:

Does God Violate Natural Laws?
There are religious, scientific and philisophical challenges to the belief that God violates natural laws which include:

1. Doubt as to the existence of natural laws.
We may only accept miracles, violations of natural laws, if we have fully accepted the existence of natural laws. In scientific terms a natural law is something that cannot be broken, for example; gravity is a force that cannot be surpassed on Earth. Scientific understanding may merely describe the behaviour of nature and cannot control or dictate it. In religious terms natural law is a theory created by Thomas Aquinas and that has been adopted by the Roman Catholic Church, stating that all that is natural is good as God created it and we should live according to nature’s intentions.

- THEISTS may not accept this definition of miracles as a violation, as they believe that God intervenes in everything "As present in the not miraculous as he is in the miraculous." (Brian Davies) If he is equally present then Hume's definition of "A volition of the Deity" would make everything a miracle as God has intervened in everything. However, some theists would say that it is THROUGH natural lwas that God sustains and in expcetion circumstances may choose to interrupt such laws, which is more in keeping with Hume's definition.

2.Arguments against miracles.
- The definition of natural law prevents anything being deemed as a miracle as it is based on a priori knowledge, "a generalisation" as John Hicks stated that after a posteriori knowledge of a certain previously unwitnessed event should then widen our understanding of natural laws, not be descrived as a violation. SOMETHING CAN NOT BREAK A LAW WHEN THE LAW IS BASED ON EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE.

- The God of the Gaps theory, continuing from John Hicks' argument. As our understanding is continually developing there may be a time when science can answer all the question and therefore remove the label of "violation" of our understanding as instead of conflicting, events such as "miracles" will be encompassed within our understanding. This somewhat makes miracles and indeed religion redundant as the God of the Gaps theory states that religious believers use gaps in scientific knowledge to plant ideas of God's existence. When this gap leaves will there then be no place for God? This theory undermines the concept of faith however and as faith requires no evidence may not be valid.

- The placebo effect. Doctors are becoming more and more aware of the sheer power of the human mind and how it can bring physical improvements i.e. recovering from an illness quickly, when there is sufficient faith and expectation for the event to happen - in the same way that a placebo drug may be used to fool the mind in to thinking recovery is possible. Whilst religious believers would argue that God was merely answering people's prayers scientists would say that the event is not miraculous but rather a feat of the person's own mind/a biological anomalie and therefore down to pure chance.

- Quantumn mechanics remains an unanswered question bit one that could in turn provide answers for strange and apparent "violations" of natural law as mere random unpredictability. However QM, although the building blocks of life, may arguable be irrelevant to miracles.

3. Hume's critique. - See essay below

4. Beliefs that God is TRANSCENDANT not IMMANENT.
- Maurice Wiles, the belied that God performs miracles that violate natural law goes against our understanding of God's relationship with the world. He believes that the world is a SINGLE act of God, whom does not interfere on an individual basis = DEISM

- Nelson Pike state sthat it is not POSSIBLE for God to intervene as God is transcendent from time and therefore has not past, present or future and may be unable to act at a certain point. Some would say Pike has misunderstood the nature of timelessness as though time does not affect God (as stated by Swinburne) this does not affect his ability to act within it or indeed to be omniscient as all knowledge requires logic not prediction of the future.

- Problem of EVIL. Some say God can not interfere in the world at all as this would undermine the free will he gave us that allowed us to choose a life worshipping him or a life of evil. Miracles would compromise such free will. Furthermore why would God only intervent in certain circumstances and not in others e.g. saving the Israelites from Egypt but not the Jews from the Holocaust. After all the Israelites were the JEws ancestors - why should they be saved and not them? Wiles concludes therefore that God does not intervene at all as he does not wish to choose.