< PREV | NEXT > | INDEX | SITEMAP | GOOGLE | UPDATES | BLOG | CONTACT | $Donate? | HOME

[4.0] Of Miracles

v1.1.1 / chapter 4 of 6 / 01 dec 23 / greg goebel

* The best-known of all of Hume's essays is "Of Miracles", his study of how to come to grips with claims of the miraculous, the marvelous, the superstitious. It remains pertinent centuries later.

HUME ON KNOWLEDGE


[4.1] TESTIMONY & SECOND-HAND KNOWLEDGE
[4.2] WHAT IS A MIRACLE?
[4.3] THE CREDIBILITY OF TESTIMONY
[4.4] THEOLOGY, RELIGION, & MIRACLES

[4.1] TESTIMONY & SECOND-HAND KNOWLEDGE

* Hume begins the essay "Of Miracles" by saying that the Christian religion is based on the testimony of the Apostles -- and it is a weak foundation:

BEGIN_QUOTE:

It is acknowledged on all hands ... that the authority, either of the scripture or of tradition, is founded merely in the testimony of the apostles, who were eye-witnesses to those miracles of our Saviour, by which he proved his divine mission. Our evidence, then, for the truth of the Christian religion is less than the evidence for the truth of our senses; because, even in the first authors of our religion, it was no greater; and it is evident it must diminish in passing from them to their disciples; nor can any one rest such confidence in their testimony, as in the immediate object of his senses.

>But a weaker evidence can never destroy a stronger< ... [the truth] revealed in scripture ... contradicts sense, though both the scripture and tradition, on which it is supposed to be built, carry not such evidence with them as sense ...

END_QUOTE

In saying "a weaker evidence can never destroy a stronger", Hume pointed to the reality that arguments for the miraculous involve an inversion of sensibility -- with weak arguments presented as undeniable truth, while strong arguments are dismissed, and the concept of reliable evidence attacked.

That provides the starting point of the path of Hume's argument in this essay. Working from there, Hume said that "I flatter myself" in having discovered an argument along such lines that will be "an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion" for "the accounts of miracles and prodigies be found in all history, sacred and profane."

It should be realized that Hume's argument in this instance, although focused on religious superstition, remains broadly applicable to modern secular superstitions as well. Anyway, Hume began by reviewing notions from his skeptical-empirical philosophy, saying that we can only know about the real Universe from reliable observation and -- following up his discussion of probabilities -- that we have to accept a lesser or greater degree of uncertainty in doing so:

BEGIN_QUOTE:

Though experience be our only guide in reasoning concerning matters of fact; it must be acknowledged, that this guide is not altogether infallible, but in some cases is apt to lead us into errors. One, who in our climate, should expect better weather in any week of June than in one of December, would reason justly, and conformably to experience; but it is certain, that he may happen, in the event, to find himself mistaken. However, we may observe, that, in such a case, he would have no cause to complain of experience; because it commonly informs us beforehand of the uncertainty, by that contrariety of events, which we may learn from a diligent observation.

All effects follow not with like certainty from their supposed causes. Some events are found, in all countries and all ages, to have been constantly conjoined together: Others are found to have been more variable, and sometimes to disappoint our expectations; so that, in our reasonings concerning matter of fact, there are all imaginable degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the lowest species of moral evidence.

END_QUOTE

It has been said that "Of Miracles" represents an application of Hume's theory of mind, not a further construction of it. That's not exactly true, since it asks the fundamental question of where the testimony of others -- "second-hand" knowledge -- fits into his skeptical empiricism. Our world would be painfully small if we only took stock in things we had direct experience of, and only cranks claim to do so. Of course, we do accept second-hand experience, as directed by our own experience, education, and sensibility:

BEGIN_QUOTE:

>A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.< In such conclusions as are founded on an infallible experience, he expects the event with the last degree of assurance, and regards his past experience as a full proof of the future existence of that event. In other cases, he proceeds with more caution: He weighs the opposite experiments: He considers which side is supported by the greater number of experiments: to that side he inclines, with doubt and hesitation; and when at last he fixes his judgement, the evidence exceeds not what we properly call probability. [ED: An informal Bayesian analysis.]

... there is no species of reasoning more common, more useful, and even necessary to human life, than that which is derived from the testimony of men, and the reports of eye-witnesses and spectators. ... our assurance in any argument of this kind is derived from no other principle than our observation of the veracity of human testimony, and of the usual conformity of facts to the reports of witnesses.

END_QUOTE

If we only learn about the world from personal experience, those experiences also include experience of human testimony -- which tells us that it can be reliable, and also gives hints when it's not reliable:

BEGIN_QUOTE:

Were not the memory tenacious to a certain degree, had not men commonly an inclination to truth and a principle of probity; were they not sensible to shame, when detected in a falsehood: Were not these, I say, discovered by experience to be qualities, inherent in human nature, we should never repose the least confidence in human testimony. >A man delirious, or noted for falsehood and villany, has no manner of authority with us.<

END_QUOTE

Of course, it's not usually a question of fully believing or completely disbelieving a witness:

BEGIN_QUOTE:

We frequently hesitate concerning the reports of others. We balance the opposite circumstances, which cause any doubt or uncertainty; and when we discover a superiority on any side, we incline to it; but still with a diminution of assurance, in proportion to the force of its antagonist.

This contrariety of evidence, in the present case, may be derived from several different causes; from the opposition of contrary testimony; from the character or number of the witnesses; from the manner of their delivering their testimony; or from the union of all these circumstances. We entertain a suspicion concerning any matter of fact, when the witnesses contradict each other; when they are but few, or of a doubtful character; when they have an interest in what they affirm; when they deliver their testimony with hesitation, or on the contrary, with too violent asseverations. There are many other particulars of the same kind, which may diminish or destroy the force of any argument, derived from human testimony.

END_QUOTE

What do we believe when we hear tales of the marvelous and implausible? We fall back on "Custom" or "Habit", believing that which experience has taught us to believe:

BEGIN_QUOTE:

The reason why we place any credit in witnesses and historians, is not derived from any connexion, which we perceive a priori, between testimony and reality, but because we are accustomed to find a conformity between them.

END_QUOTE

Notice how Hume's "necessary connection" pops up and then disappears again. We have no "necessary" reason to believe a witness; we instead believe witnesses that experience has shown to be reliable -- except when a witness tells us something that experience then tells us contradicts everything we recognize as fact:

BEGIN_QUOTE:

"I should not believe such a story were it told me by Cato", was a proverbial saying in Rome, even during the lifetime of that philosophical patriot. The incredibility of a fact, it was allowed, might invalidate so great an authority.

The Indian prince, who refused to believe the first relations concerning the effects of frost, reasoned justly; and it naturally required very strong testimony to engage his assent to facts, that arose from a state of nature, with which he was unacquainted, and which bore so little analogy to those events, of which he had had constant and uniform experience. Though they were not contrary to his experience, they were not conformable to it.

END_QUOTE

The reference to the "Indian prince" concerns a story, common in the philosophy of the era, about a visitor to India who told a prince there that, when water froze on a lake or river, it could get so thick on a lake or river as to support the weight of an elephant. The prince, having never seen water freeze, refused to believe the story. Hume believed that was reasonable, frozen water being out of the man's experience.

BACK_TO_TOP

[4.2] WHAT IS A MIRACLE?

* Of course, freezing temperatures being completely outside the prince's experience, he had no way to deny the report either -- and significantly, the prince could in principle send a trusted advisor to wintry lands to investigate, and get to the facts of the matter. Miracles, in contrast, by definition contradict experience, and invariably defy investigation:

BEGIN_QUOTE:

>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 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.

END_QUOTE

From Hume's day on, his critics have protested his assertion that miracles are impossible, claiming that he had no basis for saying such a thing. The reply is: "Hume did not say that -- you did." A miracle is, by definition, something that happens that our experience tells us doesn't happen, and claiming it could have only taken place through supernatural intervention. After all, if people rose from the dead all the time, we wouldn't consider it anything unusual, and so we would not consider it miraculous. Might there be some alternate reality where people come back to life on a regular basis? We can't say there isn't, but we can say it doesn't happen often, or it seems happens at all, in the one we inhabit.

What Hume did not emphasize in this essay, though he touched on it elsewhere, was that labeling an inexplicable event a miracle was not an answer at all, instead being a declaration that there was no answer. If something happens that is outside of all our experience, labeling it a "miracle" explains nothing; it instead amounts to throwing up our hands and saying: "The Deity did it!" -- when have no way of knowing if it was really the Devil who did it, or invisible fairies. We can arbitrarily assign the miracle to any Unseen Agent we like, and it makes no difference which. We can't see any of them, and we have no idea of what they did, beyond a poof of magic that is, by effective definition, inexplicable.

It is impossible to prove a miracle actually occurred. How can we say that an event is "supernatural"? If it actually happened, how can we say it wasn't a natural event? Just because we don't know a mundane explanation of a seemingly miraculous event in no way proves a mundane explanation can't exist. Even if something happens that contradicts all our experience, if we were able to duplicate the event at will, we would simply characterize it through observations, and devise a new law of nature to account for it.

We are inclined to read more into scientific theories than is actually there, giving them a life of their own, as if they defined necessary connections. No, they only define observed connections: we observe regularities in nature, and devise theories that allow us to observe circumstances, to predict what will happen next. Such theories are no more valid than the observations on which they are based, and on the conformance of their results to observations. Anything in a theory that isn't directly connected to observations is a useful accounting rule at best; useless excess baggage at worst.

Again, there are no laws of nature in the strict sense of the word "law", merely regular phenomena that we have reliably observed, and on which we construct our theories. If we observe things we haven't seen before, we characterize them, and adjust our theories accordingly. Yet once more, we don't know, can't know, why the Universe is the way it is; we simply observe the way it is, and follow along. If things start happening that haven't happened before, we characterize them, and adjust our theories accordingly. As the modern saying has it: "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."

BACK_TO_TOP

[4.3] THE CREDIBILITY OF TESTIMONY

* In any case, Hume then got to the core of his argument, establishing as a "general maxim worthy of our attention":

BEGIN_QUOTE:

That 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 endeavours to establish ...

END_QUOTE

He elaborated:

BEGIN_QUOTE:

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.

END_QUOTE

Would testimony from highly credible sources be persuasive? Possibly, but Hume noted that, effectively by definition, highly credible sources rarely tell unbelievable tales. If they saw something astounding, they would be concerned about protecting their credibility, and qualify their reports by adding they may have misunderstood things:

BEGIN_QUOTE:

... there is not to be found, in all history, any miracle attested by a sufficient number of men, of such unquestioned good-sense, education, and learning, as to secure us against all delusion in themselves; of such undoubted integrity, as to place them beyond all suspicion of any design to deceive others; of such credit and reputation in the eyes of mankind, as to have a great deal to lose in case of their being detected in any falsehood; and at the same time, attesting facts performed in such a public manner and in so celebrated a part of the world, as to render the detection unavoidable: All which circumstances are requisite to give us a full assurance in the testimony of men.

END_QUOTE

Those who are less concerned about their credibility, in contrast, are quick to embrace outlandish stories, believing them not in spite of the fact that they are preposterous, but because of it. Some people are inclined to embrace ignorance and reject learning. As Hume pointed out in his DIALOGUES CONCERNING NATURAL RELIGION:

BEGIN_QUOTE:

There is indeed a kind of brutish and ignorant scepticism ... which gives the vulgar a general prejudice against what they do not easily understand, and makes them reject every principle which requires elaborate reasoning to prove and establish it. This species of scepticism is fatal to knowledge ... since we find, that those who make greatest profession of it, give often their assent ... even to the most absurd tenets which a traditional superstition has recommended to them. They firmly believe in witches, though they will not believe nor attend to the most simple proposition of Euclid.

END_QUOTE

Who wants the dull boring facts? Colorful tales are exciting and easy to accept on that basis. Indeed, it becomes a mark of self-superiority to transcend the ordinary and unimaginative, credibility be hanged:

BEGIN_QUOTE:

The passion of surprise and wonder, arising from miracles, being an agreeable emotion, gives a sensible tendency towards the belief of those events, from which it is derived. And this goes so far, that even those who cannot enjoy this pleasure immediately, nor can believe those miraculous events, of which they are informed, yet love to partake of the satisfaction at second-hand or by rebound, and place a pride and delight in exciting the admiration of others.

With what greediness are the miraculous accounts of travellers received, their descriptions of sea and land monsters, their relations of wonderful adventures, strange men, and uncouth manners? But if the spirit of religion join itself to the love of wonder, there is an end of common sense; and human testimony, in these circumstances, loses all pretensions to authority.

END_QUOTE

Religious zeal reinforces the willingness to believe:

BEGIN_QUOTE:

A religionist may be an enthusiast, and imagine he sees what has no reality: he may know his narrative to be false, and yet persevere in it, with the best intentions in the world, for the sake of promoting so holy a cause: or even where this delusion has not place, vanity, excited by so strong a temptation, operates on him more powerfully than on the rest of mankind in any other circumstances; and self-interest with equal force. His auditors may not have, and commonly have not, sufficient judgement to canvass his evidence: what judgement they have, they renounce by principle, in these sublime and mysterious subjects: or if they were ever so willing to employ it, passion and a heated imagination disturb the regularity of its operations. Their credulity increases his impudence: and his impudence overpowers their credulity.

Eloquence, when at its highest pitch, leaves little room for reason or reflection; but addressing itself entirely to the fancy or the affections, captivates the willing hearers, and subdues their understanding.

END_QUOTE

In reality, the evidence for such marvels is invariably skimpy and doubtful, proving little more than that people may be inclined to fool themselves:

BEGIN_QUOTE:

The many instances of forged miracles, and prophecies, and supernatural events, which, in all ages, have either been detected by contrary evidence, or which detect themselves by their absurdity, prove sufficiently the strong propensity of mankind to the extraordinary and the marvellous, and ought reasonably to beget a suspicion against all relations of this kind. This is our natural way of thinking, even with regard to the most common and most credible events.

For instance: There is no kind of report which rises so easily, and spreads so quickly, especially in country places and provincial towns, as those concerning marriages; insomuch that two young persons of equal condition never see each other twice, but the whole neighbourhood immediately join them together. The pleasure of telling a piece of news so interesting, of propagating it, and of being the first reporters of it, spreads the intelligence. And this is so well known, that no man of sense gives attention to these reports, till he find them confirmed by some greater evidence. Do not the same passions, and others still stronger, incline the generality of mankind to believe and report, with the greatest vehemence and assurance, all religious miracles?

END_QUOTE

Of course, the ignorant are much more inclined to believe in miracles than the wise. Our ancestors, being necessarily more ignorant than ourselves, were correspondingly more dominated by superstition. When we read narratives from ancient times, it would seem that miracles were far more commonplace than they are now:

BEGIN_QUOTE:

It forms a strong presumption against all supernatural and miraculous relations, that they are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous nations; or if a civilized people has ever given admission to any of them, that people will be found to have received them from ignorant and barbarous ancestors, who transmitted them with that inviolable sanction and authority, which always attend received opinions.

When we peruse the first histories of all nations, we are apt to imagine ourselves transported into some new world; where the whole frame of nature is disjointed, and every element performs its operations in a different manner, from what it does at present. Battles, revolutions, pestilence, famine and death, are never the effect of those natural causes, which we experience. Prodigies, omens, oracles, judgements, quite obscure the few natural events, that are intermingled with them. But as the former grow thinner every page, in proportion as we advance nearer the enlightened ages, we soon learn, that there is nothing mysterious or supernatural in the case, but that all proceeds from the usual propensity of mankind towards the marvellous, and that, though this inclination may at intervals receive a check from sense and learning, it can never be thoroughly extirpated from human nature.

It is strange, a judicious reader is apt to say, upon the perusal of these wonderful historians, that such prodigious events never happen in our days. But it is nothing strange, I hope, that men should lie in all ages.

END_QUOTE

One of the many difficulties with belief in miracles is that different religions tend to passionately believe in their own miracles, while denying the miracles of rivals:

BEGIN_QUOTE:

... when we believe any miracle of Mahomet or his successors, we have for our warrant the testimony of a few barbarous Arabians: And on the other hand, we are to regard the authority ... of all the authors and witnesses, Grecian, Chinese, and Roman Catholic, who have related any miracle in their particular religion; I say, we are to regard their testimony in the same light as if they had mentioned that Mahometan miracle, and had in express terms contradicted it, with the same certainty as they have for the miracle they relate.

... The wise lend a very academic faith to every report which favours the passion of the reporter; whether it magnifies his country, his family, or himself, or in any other way strikes in with his natural inclinations and propensities. But what greater temptation than to appear a missionary, a prophet, an ambassador from heaven? Who would not encounter many dangers and difficulties, in order to attain so sublime a character? Or if, by the help of vanity and a heated imagination, a man has first made a convert of himself, and entered seriously into the delusion; who ever scruples to make use of pious frauds, in support of so holy and meritorious a cause?

... In the infancy of new religions, the wise and learned commonly esteem [reports of miracles] too inconsiderable to deserve their attention or regard. And when afterwards they would willingly detect the cheat, in order to undeceive the deluded multitude, the season is now past, and the records and witnesses, which might clear up the matter, have perished beyond recovery.

END_QUOTE

It must be admitted that in modern times, there has been something of a revival of superstition, such as belief in a flat Earth. Crank ideas have never gone away, of course, it's just that the global internet has allowed them to be disseminated more easily, loudly, and methodically -- as loosely organized campaigns, committed to the mass distribution of misinformation; an associated assault on the credibility of reputable sources of information; and a belligerent contempt for expertise, derived from the self-superior conceit of ignorance.

Today, secular superstitions are more prevalent than religious ones; they may still be zealously driven by ideology -- but whether they are religious or secular, they are also often driven simply by a fascination with the outrageous. Hume had little notion of what is now called "crank magnetics", or the inclination of cranks to indiscriminately accept every crank idea that comes their way. Nonetheless, the new superstitious are still superstitious, embracing the implausible in spite of its lack of support in the evidence:

BEGIN_QUOTE:

Upon the whole ... it appears, that no testimony for any kind of miracle has ever amounted to a probability, much less to a proof; and that, even supposing it amounted to a proof, it would be opposed by another proof; derived from the very nature of the fact, which it would endeavour to establish. It is experience only, which gives authority to human testimony; and it is the same experience, which assures us of the laws of nature.

END_QUOTE

Hume admitted that tales of the marvelous could be taken seriously, if they were told by a large group of reliable witnesses, with no strong connections between each other, who told the same story in a guarded fashion:

BEGIN_QUOTE:

... suppose, all authors, in all languages, agree, that, from the first of January 1600, there was a total darkness over the whole earth for eight days: suppose that the tradition of this extraordinary event is still strong and lively among the people: that all travellers, who return from foreign countries, bring us accounts of the same tradition, without the least variation or contradiction: it is evident, that our present philosophers, instead of doubting the fact, ought to receive it as certain, and ought to search for the causes whence it might be derived. The decay, corruption, and dissolution of nature, is an event rendered probable by so many analogies, that any phenomenon, which seems to have a tendency towards that catastrophe, comes within the reach of human testimony, if that testimony be very extensive and uniform.

END_QUOTE

Of course, the darkness over the Earth would not contradict anything we knew to be facts; it would simply be something we had not seen ourselves. We also do know that the planet, in its long existence, has had its infrequent drastic fits of disorder, so the persistent darkness -- however inexplicable -- would seem extraordinary, but not preposterous. It was not unknown in the times before Hume for the skies, on rare occasions, to grow eerily hazy, with unnatural cold, due to a massive volcanic eruption that took place in distant regions, unobserved by and unknown to Europeans. A 1783 volcanic eruption in Iceland, less than a decade after Hume's death, generated massive toxic emissions that wreaked havoc all over Europe.

The case would be different for, say, a monarch rising from the dead, when all experience shows that people do not return from the dead. No amount of testimony from the most credible witnesses would suggest anything, other than they all had been tricked:

BEGIN_QUOTE:

But suppose, that all the historians who treat of England, should agree, that, on the first of January 1600, Queen Elizabeth died; that both before and after her death she was seen by her physicians and the whole court, as is usual with persons of her rank; that her successor was acknowledged and proclaimed by the parliament; and that, after being interred a month, she again appeared, resumed the throne, and governed England for three years: I must confess that I should be surprised at the concurrence of so many odd circumstances, but should not have the least inclination to believe so miraculous an event. I should not doubt of her pretended death, and of those other public circumstances that followed it: I should only assert it to have been pretended, and that it neither was, nor possibly could be real.

END_QUOTE

Nothing in our proper experience tells us people can rise from the dead; we are, however, only too familiar with hoaxes. Hume cited Francis Bacon, another one of the fathers of empirical thinking, in support:

BEGIN_QUOTE:

We ought to make a collection or particular history of all monsters and prodigious births or productions, and in a word of every thing new, rare, and extraordinary in nature. But this must be done with the most severe scrutiny, lest we depart from truth. Above all, every relation must be considered as suspicious, which depends in any degree upon religion, as the prodigies of Livy: And no less so, every thing that is to be found in the writers of natural magic or alchimy, or such authors, who seem, all of them, to have an unconquerable appetite for falsehood and fable.

END_QUOTE

It appears that Lord Bacon had, among his other achievements, discovered crank magnetics, even if he didn't use the term.

BACK_TO_TOP

[4.4] THEOLOGY, RELIGION, & MIRACLES

* Having made his case, Hume delivered a guarded but nonetheless pointed rebuke to theology in general, along with a subtle dismissive dig at religion:

BEGIN_QUOTE:

I am the better pleased with the method of reasoning here delivered, as I think it may serve to confound those dangerous friends or disguised enemies to the Christian Religion, who have undertaken to defend it by the principles of human reason. >Our most holy religion is founded on Faith, not on reason; and it is a sure method of exposing it to put it to such a trial as it is, by no means, fitted to endure.<

END_QUOTE

In his lawyerly way, Hume ended by summarizing his case against miracles, concluding that they more undermined Christianity than supported it, and made his exit on a sharp note of sarcasm:

BEGIN_QUOTE:

... let us examine those miracles, related in scripture; and not to lose ourselves in too wide a field, let us confine ourselves to such as we find in the Pentateuch [the Books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, & Deuteronomy], which we shall examine, according to the principles of these pretended Christians, not as the word or testimony of God himself, but as the production of a mere human writer and historian.

Here then we are first to consider a book, presented to us by a barbarous and ignorant people, written in an age when they were still more barbarous, and in all probability long after the facts which it relates, corroborated by no concurring testimony, and resembling those fabulous accounts, which every nation gives of its origin.

Upon reading this book, we find it full of prodigies and miracles. It gives an account of a state of the world and of human nature entirely different from the present: Of our fall from that state: Of the age of man, extended to near a thousand years: Of the destruction of the world by a deluge: Of the arbitrary choice of one people, as the favourites of heaven; and that people the countrymen of the author: Of their deliverance from bondage by prodigies the most astonishing imaginable: I desire any one to lay his hand upon his heart, and after a serious consideration declare, whether he thinks that the falsehood of such a book, supported by such a testimony, would be more extraordinary and miraculous than all the miracles it relates; which is, however, necessary to make it be received, according to the measures of probability above established.

What we have said of miracles may be applied, without any variation, to prophecies; and indeed, all prophecies are real miracles, and as such only, can be admitted as proofs of any revelation. If it did not exceed the capacity of human nature to foretell future events, it would be absurd to employ any prophecy as an argument for a divine mission or authority from heaven. [ED: Hume did not mention here the reality that all prophecies are retrospective -- only played up for things that actually have happened, with all failures of prophecy swept under the rug.]

So that, upon the whole, we may conclude, that the Christian Religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one. Mere reason is insufficient to convince us of its veracity: >And whoever is moved by Faith to assent to it, is conscious of a continued miracle in his own person, which subverts all the principles of his understanding, and gives him a determination to believe what is most contrary to custom and experience.<

END_QUOTE

There has been protest that Hume was wrong, that Christianity is not dependent on miracles -- but what particular need does anyone have for a remote and indifferent Deity who does nothing to alter the course of nature? With events taking place in the same way whether there was a Deity or not? What would be left of Christianity without belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, or in the next life? Are these things any less miraculous than rising from the dead? Without them, Christ speaks with no special authority, described in tales marked by miracles that have to be dismissed as fictions.

BACK_TO_TOP
< PREV | NEXT > | INDEX | SITEMAP | GOOGLE | UPDATES | BLOG | CONTACT | $Donate? | HOME