Of Miracles

A vision of Jesus in the clouds?

• A six-inch-high porcelain statue began weeping tears of blood. The liquid staining the image is genuinely blood, and human at that. The Santiago coroner's office pronounced the substance is type O-4 human blood. The statue weeps regularly, particularly in the presence of children."

• ( Source: The Guardian, UK, 4 December1992 )

• On 15 February a Kenyan nun, Sister Anna Hadija Ali, spoke about her meetings with Jesus every Thursday since 1987. In a photograph taken in 1988, Jesus weeps blood. Since then, every Wednesday prior to her meeting, Sister Anna's face becomes swollen and painful and the following day she, too, weeps blood.

• Her doctor remarked that this is an "absolutely inexplicable phenomenon from the scientific and human point of view". He also commented on an "extraordinary aroma of freshness" she exudes during this process, which he concluded is the "perfume of the Christ".

Some terminology• Epistemology – study of knowledge. • Belief – something you hold to be true based on

reasoning, experience, testimony etc.. Your beliefs can be true or false.

• Knowledge – objective and certain knowledge, true regardless of our believing in it.

• Empiricism – knowledge is gained through our sense perceptions, experience.

• Rationalism – knowledge is gained through reasoning, no need to refer to the sensory world.

• Scepticism – nothing is certain or knowledge is beyond our grasp.

Hume on Miracles

‘A miracle is a violation of the laws

of nature’

David Hume 1711 - 1776

• Scottish Empiricist philosopher• His method was Sceptical and critical• Prominent works – ‘Inquiry Concerning Human

Understanding’ (1748); ‘Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals’ (1751). Key essay ‘Of Miracles’.

• It was a widely held thought at the time amongst Christian thinkers that miracles were proof of revelation and therefore proof of the claims of a religion.

Hume on Testimony The accounts or testimony of others allow us to form

beliefs and may contribute to our knowledge. However as Hume points out testimony has at times been unreliable and false, therefore we must view reports of the miraculous critically:

• Is there a contrary testimony?• What is the character of the witness?• How many witnesses were there?• How they delivered their testimony.• Does the witness have an interest in what they claim?• We like to tell and hear remarkable stories.• Testimonies often come from those less enlightened.

That is not to say that they should be disregarded. We are generally trusting of testimony because it frequently conforms to reality.

However, when that testimony concerns something rarely observed it become a more challenging proposal.

‘The Indian Prince’• An Indian Prince who had

never experienced the cold rejected accounts of the effects of frost due to his limited experience. The description did not contradict his understanding but did not conform to it either.

• This example raises a problem with experience - ours will always be limited so we might draw false conclusions.

The heart of Hume’s argument

Wise Men

‘Wise men proportion their belief to the evidence’

By this Hume meant that we should believe in that which has happened the most often or has the greatest weight of evidence in its favour.

If there is significant or infallible evidence as a basis then we can proceed with confidence.

The more there is evidence to the contrary then the more cautious should we be.

Hume argued that the laws of nature themselves were extremely strong evidence from experience.

‘A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle...is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.’

Catch 22 for miracles

To identify a miracle we must compare it to the uniform laws it appears to break. However in doing so we highlight the evidence against the miracle – which is more substantial and therefore overthrows the proposed miracle. So another explanation, in keeping with the laws of nature, must be sought.

Always reject the greater miracle

• In doing so one is following the greatest weight of evidence and rejecting the most unlikely scenario.

• This means that ONLY if the opposite of a miraculous account were MORE miraculous could that original account be taken as reliable;

‘..no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless..its falsehood would be more miraculous (than its truth)’

and to religion...

• ‘...no human testimony can have such force as to prove a miracle, and make it a foundation for any such system of religion.’

• Hume does accept the possibility of miracles but not that there is any evidence for them, and as knowledge for Hume is based on observable evidence we can have no knowledge of the existence of miracles.

Where do we go now?

• If the Christian faith is based on the belief in at least one miracle (the resurrection)

• and Hume has successfully argued against knowing that miracles exist

• how might Christians seek to defend their faith?

Look to undermine his argument / concepts.

Possibilities

• Review definition of miracle from ‘violation’ to something working through the laws.

• Using faith accept the accounts

• Hume has only shown that we cannot have certain knowledge that miracles do not exist, not that they do not exist at all.

• Review understanding of ‘laws of nature’ – as with our definition of miracles, today’s definitions are more liberal and flexible.