© Michael Lacewing

Miracles

Michael Lacewingenquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk

Three ways of defining miracles

• An event that has religious significance

• An event caused by God• An event that violates the laws of

nature, caused by God

Hume on miracles

• “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” - ‘Of Miracles’ in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Hume’s argument

• When considering evidence from testimony (reports that the miracle occurred), it would have to be more miraculous that the reports are false than that the event really occurred. This is never true, for four reasons:

Hume’s four reasons

• No miracle is confirmed by a large number of people with good sense, education, integrity and reputation

• People enjoy surprise and wonder, so we wrongly tend to believe in the miraculous

• Tales of miracles are more popular among ignorant peoples, less popular in civilization

• Every religion proclaims miracles, but not every religion can be true. Whose miracles really happen? The evidence from each cancels out the others.

Three responses to Hume’s argument

• Is Hume right about laws of nature? Could exceptions to a law of nature occur? Do laws of nature make miracles impossible?

• Is Hume right about the evidence for miracles? Do laws of nature undermine all possible evidence for miracles?

• Is Hume right when he defines a miracle as a violation of a law of nature?

Three issues for discussion

• Can we ever have good evidence for a miracle?

• If miracles occur, what is God like? Why would God act so selectively this way?

• Is there a better understanding of what a miracle is?