- Hume’s often cited argument against miracles is, in brief, that these should be rejected because they contravene the laws of nature that have been verified over and over again. The argument continues with the claims that the human mind is unstable and no miracle has in fact had enough witnesses of sufficient honesty, intelligence, and education. In addition, given that miracles are common in most religions and, given the fact that religions contradict each other, these miracles cannot be all true therefore is best to reject all. Furthermore, an Indian prince not having experienced frozen water is simply adjusting his knowledge rather than accepting a miracle testimony when told by several experts about the effects of coldness on water. The Indian prince witnesses scientific progress, not a miracle.
- To date, the pro-miracles reply is weak and includes:
- The definition given need not be accepted and “an event need not violate a natural law in order to be accounted miraculous”
- Hume’s argument is circular because it rests upon the claim that laws of nature are supported by exceptionless testimony, but testimony can only be accounted exceptionless if we discount the occurrence of miracles.
- Non-believers simply refuse to understand
- Better pro-miracle arguments are:
- Miracles are consistent with an all powerful God above the laws of nature.
- Miracles do stand out by necessity (to be impactful), therefore they are unique and clear departures from the norm. Common occurrence miracles lose their power of persuasion just as novel technologies (human flight, microbiology, nuclear energy, etc.) are perceived as quasi-miraculous when first introduced and become banal in time.
- All aspects of the universe in general and life in particular are of course common miracles that remind some of us of God’s power. But dull minds get used to them and eventually offer clearly ridiculous Godless alternative explanations to these daily miracles (such as “evolution”). To jolt mankind out of its lethargy, God sends periodic messages in the form of unique miracles. How else other than through miracles would God show His powers to the mortals?
- Hume had no clue about, hence misused probabilities. Because miracles are by their nature unique (as shown), Hume’s followers should compare their probability to the probability of “no miracles whatsoever given an infinity of samples”, not with the probability of a sample conforming to the laws of nature. In other words, the probability of Jesus walking on water should not be compared with that of the few observed sinking bodies in water (100%), but with the probability of “ALL current and past contacts with the water resulted in sinking” (0% or very low). And since none of us has observed more than a very tiny fraction of these events, it is fallacious to conclude from these that all bodies always sink in water. To be absolutely positively sure about all-always, one would have to observe all events and confirm the always hypothesis. Clearly, neither Hume, nor any of his followers has done that.
- Just because many imitators are evidently lying, it doesn’t follow that there are no authentic miracles. This is self evident and requires no further explanation.
- While religions do generally disagree, miracles do not necessarily disagree with one another. And even religious disagreements are much more likely to be caused by misunderstanding of God and His will rather than by one religion being true when all others are false (and Hume’s followers hope atheism is the one true religion).
Links:
https://www.mbu.edu/seminary/a-critique-of-david-humes-on-miracles/
https://www.bartleby.com/37/3/14.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Miracles
Top 10 authentic miracles?
As I have often stated here. It’s not possible to have evidence of a miracle, for the materialist, because they can always just say, ‘well, we just don’t have an explanation yet ‘! .
It’s the absurdity of their position on evidence. They claim they just want to see the evidence, but when asked what would be evidence to them, they they reluctantly have to admit that nothing could ever suffice. I call it the Gap of the God’s defense.
There are so many misunderstandings and errors here it’s hard to know where to begin. But let’s start here: Hume’s question is not “is it reasonable to believe in miracles?” but the very different “is it reasonable to accept that a miracle took place on the basis of testimony alone?”
Well, go on then. Try us. Why don’t ya. Top 3?
So, for you, the miracles you refuse to name are your best evidence for God?
phoodoo,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_of_Cupertino
Miracle you believe in or not?
phoodoo yet again projects his confusion on all matters concerning ‘evidence’ versus examples (or better stated purported examples). Anyone surprised? Nope, didn’t think so.
To underscore his confusion I doubt he coud find a single individual that wouldn’t consider an example of a human regrowing an amputated limb as being miraculous. We currently would not have an explanation for this, should it be observed, but historical contigency would suggest it would be a miraculous event.
Another. less compelling example, would be remission of symptoms in a MS patient. Oftern touted as being miraculous to some with the frequency of acceptance of this being miraculous (catholic church) has declined markedly over the years as diagnostic improvements combined with the recognition that remission is a commonly observed phemonema in the time course of disease progression in a patient with MS.
with both of the above examples the explanation is, or would be, unknown but does the lack of explanation make a miracle? Of course not! Apparently, only in phoodoo world does the lack of explanation for an event make the event miraculous. Phoodoo world discounts the historical contigency of observations in determining what would be considered miraculous.
In phoodoo world ALL claims are considered equally valid and consists of validation of its beleif system.
In phoodoo world ALL studies are considered with equal weight concerning their validity. No exceptions!
In phoodoo world Hulda Clark’s claim that she can/could cure cancer with her ‘zapper’ (despite dying of cancer herself) are due equal consideration to published claims of efficacy of chemotherapeutics in curing cancer, e.g., childhood leukemia. No consideration for historical contingency nor evidence of efficacy necessary in phoodoo world.
phoodoo world is a very farcical place, fool.
No the real problem is that you’ve never understood what evidence is or what it means to say you have evidence for or against a claim. You also don’t seem to even have a coherent definition of what a miracle is.
Given your continued inability to wrap your head around these concepts it’s a waste of time drying to argue with you about whether something is evidence for miracles or not.
Kantian Naturalist,
If this is a critique of the resurrection in the gospels I would say that Hume may not be competent to argue against it as there is more than just direct testimony as evidence. We also have more evidence of Devine creation than Hume did.
You seem to be saying that zero is greater than zero.
Better pro-miracle arguments are:
Miracles are consistent with an all powerful God above the laws of nature.
And that was the top of the list of ‘better arguments’.
If you have accepted the god thing, then anything that follows doesn’t need to make sense, or follow any rules. After that the word ‘miracle’ ceases to have any meaning at all.
While religions do generally disagree…
And that was the very last one. The only correct utterance left to the very end.
Neil Rickert,
Is it possible there is more than zero evidence yet you don’t understand it? Assertions are not arguments. It is certain we know more about molecular biology today than during Hume’s lifetime. We have also identified translated code inside cells. Multiple layers of it. This is solid evidence of mind or design behind the universe. Your solution remains untested speculation. I glad you have confidence in it.
No, that is not possible.
It isn’t evidence if it isn’t evident.
Limb regeneration could have a natural explanation. It happens in some critters, so it wouldn’t violate any laws of physics.
But the absence of any documented instances suggests that the purveyor of miraculous cures is sometimes stingy. Oddly, remission of death seems more probable than regeneration of a limb. Perhaps the diagnostics for limb amputation are more reliable.
I agree with OMagain … if someone could give us a particular miracle, we could use it as an example to examine in some detail.
Is anyone willing to present their bestest miracle of all, for our edification ?
phoodoo maybe ? Go on, be brave.
Or better still, instead of you just coping out like Omagain and the rest, YOU could just articulate what would qualify as a miracle, instead of just putting the onus on others to figure out why you mean by a miracle.
But just to make it fair, I will give you a miracle-frogs. Ok, there, now if that is not a miracle, then you just say what would be, ok. Fair enough?
Go on, be brave hero.
phoodoo … You don’t seem to get it. You are the one that believes in miracles.
graham2,
Well, I just named one, right?
Now, if your position is that NOTHING could be a miracle, then ok, just say that.
You and the Vatican disagree on what a miracle is.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11186584
https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/sep/13/god-miracles-vatican
So, anyway, we can put you in the colewd grouping? Atoms are designed and everything is a miracle?
phoodoo … its not a difficult question (for you):
Can you provide a miracle ?
graham2,
Wow, how thick are you? Do you write without reading anything??
I just gave you one example. Frogs. They are a miracle. Have someone read the last sentence for you please.
Now, if you don’t think that is a miracle, then guess you just have to explain what would be a miracle. . Be brave.
So?
Perhaps you and Vatican agree. Who knows. I think you have a frog in your throat that prevents you from saying what a miracle would be
A common miracle or a unique one?
Depends which frog you mean. Does it matter?
Whichever one will get the materialists to stop dodging.
According to Nonlin’s OP there is a difference:
followed by
Not sure which one we are discussing. Perhaps point 2C applies to me here.
As opposed to what? A miracle can only be known on the basis of testimony alone.
You’re asking for a miracle on demand. This will not be provided to you not least because you would find a way to reject it anyway. Did you even read and understand the argument here?
This is incoherent. Care to elaborate?
I’ve not asked for anything let alone a request for a regrowth of a lost limb in human(s).
I’d accept a human regrowing a limb as a being miraculous no matter if it were a religious zealot or a heretic, requested by prayer or out of the blue. Makes no difference at all how it coes about only that it does come about. So far in all of human history we’ve not seen it…..have we? crustaceans can regrow appendages but humans aren’t blessed with that capability for some reaso or other.
What about that do you not understand?
The Catholic church has a entire investigative process it uses to investigate testimonials of miracles having occurred. Have you not heard of it? If you have then you can see that what you posted is simply false in its entirety.
Religious texts call “miracles” only the first category, and this is what “Of Miracles” deals with, hence this discussion.
In “secular” parlance, we sometimes rightfully refer to “common miracles”. Read again and see this is not the focus of this OP.
Do you mean the only evidence of a “miracle” is a report of an event, such as the Bible story about Jesus turning water into wine? Wouldn’t a repeat performance in front of a larger audience be more convincing?
It might (though I’m sceptical) to try and define what those that think “miracles happen” mean by “miracle”.
In common parlance, anything serendipitous might be described as a miracle. I might hope against tomorrow’s weather forecast, that the sun will shine. If it shines, is it a miracle?
No, you wouldn’t. Stick with the past/present unless you’re making a testable forecast. This is not it since you will not be served a miracle on demand.
Ah so you can’t pray for a miracle. Doing so would make it not a miracle!
No. They rather have a process to weed out fakes, which is not the same thing.
You didn’t read or understand the OP. Go back to step 1.
Whatever you’re trying to say, it’s not what this OP is about.
The guy isn’t praying. And not fooling anyone. OK, perhaps he’s fooling you.
Yes, I would.
OK I’d accept a regrowing of a human limb today as being miraculous. satisfied?
I’m not requesting a limb growth as I stated it could happen to anyone, today, regardless of religious affiliation, hopeful prayers, blatant denial of the possibility, ect., ect, etc.
Your objections are baseless but I know you realize that this is likely to never happen and that, for some reason, upsets you. Don’t blame me for the lack of the miracle of limb regrowth speak with your creator and the grantor of all miracles why that specific miracle is out of bounds.
Why make it about ‘the guy’? As far as I am concerned it could happen to anybody at all. I’m not sure about ‘the guy’ but I’ll let ‘the guy’ speak for himself.
So Of Miracles refers to a book, An Equiry Concerning Human Understanding, by David Hume published in 1748, specifically section 10.
Nonlin.org,
I’m trying to glean what point you are trying to make. Up to you whether you want to help. It would be rather more helpful to say what your OP is about than what it isn’t.
So praying only works if you do it right. Naïve theology 101 😉
Perhaps Non-lin would like to elaborate on what Hume is wrong about and why he thinks Hume is wrong about that (and perhaps why we should worry about Hume’s opinion on “miracles”). Also I suggest again Non-lin might explain what he means when he uses the word, “miracle”.
From the OP:
So is Non-lin paraphrasing Hume here or is this his own statement? An example of such an event would be useful.
That already leads to the conclusion that there are no miracles.
No frogs, then.
Maybe not, but here are three genuine miracles.
The direction “up”
The color blue
The passage of time
But would any of that “evidence” be accepted by anyone who didn’t already believe in the miracles reported in the Gospels or the Old Testament?
That’s not relevant to Hume’s analysis. Hume, like everyone back then, distinguished between “natural religion” and “revealed religion.”
Natural religion is religious doctrines established on the basis of rational analysis of the natural world. (Aquinas’s “five proofs” are a good example of natural religion; so is Paley’s argument from “contrivance” to the existence of an Intelligence.)
By contrast “revealed religion” consists of those doctrines that are based on particular acts of divine revelation (e.g. the giving of the Ten Commandments to Moses, the Incarnation of the person of the Son, the recitation of the Koran to Muhammad, etc.).
Hume kept his analysis of the reasonableness of revealed religion to “On Miracles” in Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and his analysis of natural religion to his posthumously published Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.
One would need to read both in order to understand the full breadth of Hume’s agnosticism.
For the purposes of his discussion, Hume is willing to allow that one might personally experience something that counts as a miracle. But he also notes that the foundations of religion rely on testimonies of miracles — Moses and the Burning Bush, Jesus turning water into wine at the wedding at Cana, etc. That’s why he focuses his inquiry on whether it is reasonable to believe, on the basis of testimony alone, that a miracle has occurred.
I suppose it is crucial to bear in mind a distinction between miracle in a phenomenological sense and a miracle in an ontological sense. In the phenomenological sense we say that something is miraculous if it elicits more-than-usual responses of gratitude, reverence, awe, or love.
I might, in a fit of euphoria, say of my newborn daughter “look at this little miracle!” But she is not a miracle in the ontological sense, since as a matter of fact, healthy babies are born all the time.
In the ontological sense, a miracle is a violation of the laws of physics — in strictly theological terms, we could say that God deliberately breaks His own laws (the laws of nature) in order to communicate something of Himself that reveals His plan for us.
There is a slight wrinkle here with Hume, however, since he “epistemologizes” or even better “psychologizes” the formerly ontological concept of “laws of nature”; in his hands the “laws of nature” are just our own habituated expectations about sequences of observable events.
In that sense the question “is it reasonable to believe in miracles on the basis of testimony alone?” becomes the question “is it reasonable to take someone else’s word for it that something happened which runs counter to our habitual expectations?”
Notice that it could be reasonable to do, if the person was known to be extremely reliable (more so than we are!) and a person of extremely high integrity: not someone who ever makes mistakes, fantasizes, confabulates, errs, lies, or bullshits. (We need to ramp up the person’s reliability and integrity as an epistemic compensation for how much their testimony runs counter to our own habitual expectations.)
But we all know that everyone, including ourselves, is fallible, misremembers, is prone to exaggerate, might tell a story that is designed to be shocking rather than a faithful recording of the facts, could lie or bullshit, could have all sorts of ulterior motives, and might even have all sort of unconscious motives such that she spins “tall tales” even while completely convinced of her own sincerity.
What then must we say in order for someone to be so extremely reliable and of such high integrity that we have reason to trust what she says, no matter how much it runs counter to our own ingrained expectations? Hume’s answer is that, in contrast with our own habitual expectations about human behavior, would themselves be a miracle!
Hence it is reasonable to believe in a miracle on the basis of testimony alone only if one already believes in miracles to begin with.
And with that, the whole logic of revealed religion — Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. — collapses on the weight of its own circularity.