Reading: Hume, “The Evidence for Miracles is Weak”, pp. 441-447
Reminder: Whitney is presenting tomorrow. Please be well prepared for class.
Reading Guide: The editors’ summary of this piece is good and the section titles are helpful. Hume’s basic line of argument is straightforward - the evidence against miracles is stronger than the evidence in favor of miracles.
Hume begins by describing the burden of proof on those who allege that miracles have occurred: “no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact, which it endeavors to establish”(441-442). He adds that even when the unlikelihood of the testimony’s being false is higher than the unlikelihood of the miracle having occurred, this is still not decisive proof that a miracle has occurred. The force of this fact is diminished by the unlikelihood of the miracle’s having occurred; so, the likelihood of a miracle having occurred is equal to the unlikelihood of the testimony’s being false MINUS the unlikelihood of the miracle having occurred. I think it is obvious that satisfying this burden of proof would be very difficult. Next, Hume articulates several reasons "why we should doubt reports of miraculous events"(442). Each of these is important. Notice that Hume sets out some stiff requirements for witnesses being reliable. In the section on our gullibility, Hume notes our willingness to set aside normal principles of reasoning in order to feed our "passion for surprise and wonder" (442). In his discussion of the counterevidence against miracles, Hume works through a couple of examples and explains why, despite the supposed evidence for the miracles, reason was on the side of the skeptics. The last paragraph of this section is especially important. On p. 445, Hume gives us, via analysis of an example - darkness covering the earth - a description of the kind of evidence that would be needed to make it reasonable to believe on the basis of testimony that a miracle has occurred. He then contrasts this example with the example of testimony that Queen Elizabeth died, was buried for a month, and then came back to life. Pay attention to his analysis of these two examples. Notice that Hume issues an important caveat here: "there may possibly be miracles .. of such a kind as to admit of proof from human testimony" (445). However, it is doubtful that we would ever be in the position to know that a miracle has occurred. Hume concludes by disputing the testimony of the authors of the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Bible).
Terminology:
prodigies = miracles
Maxim = a principle
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I particularly liked Hume's analysis of the Pentateuch near the end of his essay. As for his main points, He is absolutely correct that witnesses are not reliable. Memory has a long history of making up facts and details so as to conform to the story you want to tell. Witnesses of a car accident have been known to place blame on multiple parties and be unreliable in their recollection of speeds. His next point has to do with gullibility. Why do humans consider lying to be bad? Its because we are so willing to believe what others tell us. Especially when lies have to do with miracles or allegations of divine intervention. We generally want to believe that someone is out there looking after us and that they will intervene when times are tough. That's the whole idea behind prayer. In this sense, miracles represent a sort of security blanket. As for the 3rd and 4th points, Hume is right on the money. Although some miracles are difficult to definitively disprove, they are equally difficult to prove, and human (unreliable) testimony is not enough to be proof.
Hume explores two of the most evident (yet most controversial) weaknesses of belief in miracles: rationality and historic origin. When considered in light of all opposing laws of nature, such breaches of logic seem increasingly more impossible. He also exposes the ignorant origins of such observation, going so far as to claim that there are no modern miracles due to advances in intellectual understanding. These beliefs are only propagated to subsequent generations through tradition regardless of their irrationality.
Although these points are valid, I disagree with part of Hume's later argument. He claims that the miracles of different religions negate one another in the same manner as opposing witnesses in court. There are two primary objections to this line of reasoning:
(1) If two miracles are unrelated (different time, place, and/or audience), they do not necessarily negate one another's validity.
and
(2) Opposing testimony, even in court, does not necessarily mean both are wrong. One could still be true while the other is false.
The validity of miracles is therefore left unconfirmed by this argument. I still personally admire Hume's willingness to directly address issues that many feel they must walk on social eggshells to discuss.
While I appreciate and am intrigued by Hume's analysis, it appears as if he continually deems those who have claimed to experience or believe in miracles to be the ignorance of society. The basis of miracles is a faith in some sort of higher power and thus to claim that a belief in the possibility of miracles as ignorance is almost assume that a belief in a higher power as ignorance. People see miracles as proof of existence, proof which furthers and strengthens their faith in a higher being. While basing faith on evidence is wrong, many people rely on it as a part of their faith. Making the claim that only educated understand the impossibility of the existence of miracles is extremely far fetched and rather irresponsible. The assumption to be drawn is that a person who believes in miracles is thus a lesser being and has some sort of mental block. To lose faith in the possibility of miracles is to lose faith in the existence of a higher being, faith which I'm sure many educated people currently have.
I find myself, for perhaps the first time, at a loss for comments. Hume makes several really good points and especially as Edward noted about the fallibility of human testimony. I particularly like though that he's the first one to point out that even if we do document a miracle, as verifiable as pearl harbor, it still would not give any indication as to a type of theology behind it. I do wonder though what he would say about some of the weirdo conspiracy theorists out there. Naturally, he would be drawn to their skepticism. On the other hand, depending of course on the specific conspiracy, he would likely smack them for being dense to logic and reason (a la "we didn't land on the moon!!!" folks).
Hume's argument that the evidence for miracles is weak is quite firmly structured and difficult to refute. His criteria that a miracle should not be believed unless the circumstances surrounding the miracle create a situation where the reported miracle being false is itself more miraculous then the miracle reported is interesting. That being said, using dark energy as an example and the scientific evidence that the galaxies in the universe are accelerating away from each other, I must say, the improbability that all the physicists on Earth are incorrect and the galaxies of the universe are not accelerating away from each other seems to me less astounding than the observations recorded. Even so, it seems most rational to trust the scientific evidence for this amazing phenomenon.
I would like to point out that miracles do happen. What about the Hindu Milk miracle. It was caught on film and not by one or two people. This phenomina occured all around the globe. Could some one have set up this great hoax. Yes it is possible but it is more likely that miracles do happen and this was one of them. I offer this example as an opposition to Hume's first claim. I don't really agree with the claim that miracles are not evidence for educated people. Most americans are well eduacted at least in the perspective of the world. Yes there are countries that are better than us but being able to read and write puts us a head of a large majority of the world. That being said, there are people here in the states that claim to have been witness to miracles. Pre-mature babies pulling through when thier likelyhood of survival is less than 5% or people being cured of cancer when they were given the diagnosis that they have 6 months to live. I find these arguements weak.
Caleb, while you may see a baby pulling through with a 5% chance of survival, I see it as a baby beating the odds. There is still a chance, and it does not go against nature to say that it happened. Hume's definition of a miracle is something that has defied the laws of nature. In this, he gives a relatively good argument against miracles. While there are some things that can't (as of now, without evidence otherwise, only the possibility of a hoax) be refuted, such as the Saint in Lourdes, who by all reports has not been embalmed and to this day has not decomposed, most miracles seem to fall under Humes categories: either they happen in such a society that cannot explain (or does not care to explain) by laws of nature, or someone has lied. He's absolutely right: we like to trust people. If we distrust everyone, we separate ourselves from society, and thus have a harder time surviving. Trust is a survival mechanism. People use this to their advantage, especially in the case of religions miracles if they are trying to promote a certain religion.
Many of Hume's points are well thought out and very precise, but when he said the writers of the Pentateuch were supposedly Christian he lost a little credit with me. This tells me he doesn't really know his biblical history.
I also like the point he makes that you can't really look at facts when it comes to religion, since it is something taken on faith, usually not on logic, and that most of the time logic simply defeats the idea. At the end of the day, you really only have faith- faith in God, faith in miracles, or whatever else you want to believe in. I feel like Hume's entire argument is that it's easier to find an explanation- the person is lying, it can be explained by the laws of nature (coma perhaps, for rising from "the dead"), thank to elieve in something that actually defies the laws of nature, which we assume to be true and infallible.
I think Hume makes some really good points, but my objection would be there are many things that go on today that seem normal which if they occured in the past, it could have been thought to be a miracle. Just because a human hasn't risen from the dead doesn't necessarily rule it out from ever happening. 1000 years ago if one was to see an aircraft flying by with people in it, they would make a miracle claim. Or a woman who had never seen childbirth or heard of it had a child....another human coming out of her...that would seem a miracle. I do however agree with his take on de bunking claims.
There is no way to prove that something is a miracle or just happens by chance. There are things that happened that are unexplained, like Caleb said about someone overcoming cancer when they have next to no chance to live. Some people call it beating the odds, religious people call it a miracle. Since no one can fully understand what is happening, I dont think you can discount that it is simply pure chance or it is a miracle.
I have trouble reconciling this claim with the vast number of individuals i have come across who testify of the power of miracles. I suppose my line of sight could be skewed in a sense because i go to church. It is also interesting to me that Hume places the existence of miracles under a strict legal analysis used in our court system. I feel that the burden of proof theory is not necesarily pertinent in areas of divine intervention. God will allow those who are worthy or in need of a miracle to act as witnesses to them. Those on the outside of that interaction demand proof for something that was never intended to be revealed to them.
Post a Comment