"Of Miracles" by David Hume

[Pyrrho]

To avoid derailing another thread, this is being given its own thread.

Here is a link to Section X ("Of Miracles") of David Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding:

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341


Hume argues that:


A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable [115] to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered credible, but by an opposite proof, which is superior.

The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), ‘That no testimony is sufficient [116] to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish; and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior.’ When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.


http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_235



Basically, he argues that one should never believe any stories of miracles that one hears or reads.


I will be happy to defend Hume's position, and to try to explain more details, as needed.  It is suggested that one read "Of Miracles" first to make life easier for all of us.  Both Parts I and II, preferably along with the footnotes (you can just click on the footnote number to take you to the footnote, and then click on the footnote number in the footnote to return to the text; the 'additional' footnote on page 344 is here; the numbers in brackets in the text are telling you the original page numbers in the printed book).  If you get lost in the footnotes, you can use the first link in this post above to find the main text again.


I will help you with reading it, too.  For a start, the "real presence" in Dr. Tillotson's writings refers to the Eucharist ceremony in Christianity, and the doctrine of transubstantiation, in which it is claimed that the bread and wine literally change into the body and blood of Jesus, while maintaining the appearance (in all ways) of bread and wine.  The doctrine of transubstantiation predates modern chemistry, and is based on an idea that the substance of a thing can be different from all of its qualities of appearance (the way it looks, smells, tastes, etc.).  And it does not matter who Dr. Tillotson is for the argument.  But if you are curious, you can read this.  For the most part, though, do not expect me to bother with matters like that, that are irrelevant to the argument.


Ask any questions you want.


Happy reading!