Hume's criticisms and miracles yes/no?

Hume’s view

Briefly: 

Shouldn’t believe in miracles

“a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence”

1.       “a man of such unquestioned good sense and education”

2.       “May persevere in it for the sake of holy cause” tales of surprise and wonder

3.       “ignorant and barbarous nations”

4.       Conflicting miracles

Only believe in testimony if not believing in it is more miraculous than the miracle itself

Indian Prince, pencils

Bible is a load of shit- “the falsehood of the bible, supported by such a testimony, would be more miraculous than the miracles it relates”. No one can testify that the Bible’s stories were true today

Plus side: Anthony Flew’s historical accounts. Not real physical, present account.

WEAKNESSES OF HUME:

-          - His definition of miracle is often criticised as he fails to recognise that the ‘laws of nature’ are descriptive, rather than prescriptive – they tell us what has been observed rather than telling nature what it may or may not do

-          So, if something goes against the rules of nature, it just is different from events that have previously been observed; it does not break a rule which must be obeyed and thus a ‘transgression of the laws of nature’ is not an impossibility – it is just unusual

- Swinburne: “one must distinguish between a formula being a law and one which is universally true and holds without exception”

-          His practical arguments are sweeping generalisations

-          Miracles are reported in modern western societies, contrary to what he states

-          Swinburne notes that testimonies are not the only form of evidence – what about physical evidence such as dry clothes, no boat or bridge – all signs maybe pointing to someone walking on water

-          Hume’s arguments against miracles do not therefore mean that miracles could not occur

-          Polkinghorne’s ‘new way’

-          CS Lewis: He saw naturalism are self-defeating because if we are just physical beings who are subjected to the laws of cause and effect then our decision to believe in naturalism is physically caused and we have no choice about what we believe. It is caused by physical factors.

-          Keith Ward hates him because Hume was a “notorious atheist who invented the phrase (violations of the laws of nature) to make miracles sound ridiculous”

Defending miracles:

Resurrection and Christ

Reveals God

Understood symbolically- no problem of evil, explains interactionist God. Epistemic distance needed

Hick’s eschatological verification principle

Prayer

God’s providence and action= special revelations

Rejecting miracles:

Interactionist is not omnibenevolent

Then raises question with omnipotence

God is the reason behind natural laws and therefore disasters. Has to intervene because he knows it’s not perfect vs. Abuse of free will, original sin/ Augustine- humans are to blame

Science can/ eventually will be able to explain miracles= psychological/ fakes etc.