3F Contrasting Views on the Possibility of Miracles

Question 1

Give the following three details of the book in which Hume outlined his work on miracles: name, year, chapter.

Answer 1

• ‘Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding’
• 1777
• Chapter X

Question 2

What is Hume’s fundamental assertion?

Answer 2

• The appeal to miracles could not demonstrate the truth of a religion

Question 3

What are the two parts to Hume’s work on miracles?

Answer 3

• Part 1: On philosophical grounds, evidence against occurrence of a purported miracle outweighs evidence in favour of the occurrence
• Part 2: In theory, the evidence in favour could outweigh evidence against, but this never happens

Question 4

In Hume’s challenge relating to testimony-based belief, what two types of evidence for miracles did he examine and what did he conclude about each?

Answer 4

• Where experience is constant - constitutes as full proof

* Where it has been variable - case of weighing proportionate probability of the exp. having happened vs not

Question 5

In Hume’s challenge relating to testimony-based belief, where does the difficulty regarding miracles occur?

Answer 5

• For it to be identified as a miracle, there must have been a uniform exp. against such an event
• In such a case, even the most impressive testimony would merely balance the improbability of the miracle
• Only testimony so strong that its falsehood would itself be more miraculous than the alleged miracle would convince him

Question 6

Rather than denying the possibility of miracles, what does Hume do?

Answer 6

• Examines the balance of probability
• What is more likely: that a miracle occurred or that a witness is lying/mistaken?
- Miracles = exceptional events
- Ppl lying/mistaken = common

Question 7

How many aspects are there to Hume’s challenges relating to the credibility of witnesses and susceptibility of belief? What are they?

Answer 7

• Three

• No miracle has a sufficient number of witnesses
• People are prone to look for marvels and wonders
• Sources of miracle stories are from ignorant people

Question 8

What are Hume’s three overall challenges?

Answer 8

• Relating to testimony-based belief
• Relating to the credibility of witnesses and susceptibility of belief
• Relating to the contradictory nature of faith claims

Question 9

Under Hume’s overall challenge of the credibility of witnesses and susceptibility of belief, what does he say about the fact that no miracle has a sufficient number of witnesses?

Answer 9

• A miracle requires a quantity of educated, trustworthy witnesses to a public event in “a celebrated part of the world” who would have to be “of such unquestioned good sense as to secure us against all delusions in themselves
• In particular, witnesses would have a lot to lose if they were found to be lying
• “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…”

Question 10

Under Hume’s overall challenge of the credibility of witnesses and susceptibility of belief, what does he say about the fact that people are prone to look for marvels and wonders?

Answer 10

• Passion + surprise = agreeable emotions ∴ tendency towards belief
• A religionist my know the miracle is false but “perseveres in it, with the best intentions in the world, for the sake of promoting so holy a cause”
• Vested interest - biased
• 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.”

Question 11

Under Hume’s overall challenge of the credibility of witnesses and susceptibility of belief, what does he say about the fact that sources of miracle stories are from ignorant people?

Answer 11

• He may be referring to the uneducated Galilean peasants in NT gospels
• No equivalents of miracles in his time (and modern time) compared with Biblical miracles
• Miracle stories acquire authority w/o critical or rational enquiry
• If miracles originated from “a city renowned for arts and knowledge” rather than a remote area, they would not have been believed
• “if a civilised people has ever given admission to any [miracles], that people will be found to have received them from ignorant and barbarous ancestors.”

Question 12

Under Hume’s overall challenge of the contradictory nature of faith claims, what does he say about the fact that religious traditions can counteract each other?

Answer 12

• The unreliability, in this case, does not derive from that of the witnesses, but rather that evi. is further contradicted by other witnesses
• Islamic miracles support Islam and contradict C.ty (vice versa)
- Evi. for one = evi. against the other
• Every supposed miracle is used to est. that particular tradition ∴ is an indirect attempt to destroy the credit of other r.s
∴ miracles = self-cancelling as witnesses to the truth of a r. system

Question 13

What is Hume’s first conclusion?

Answer 13

• “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a king, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish.”

Question 14

What is Hume’s second conclusion?

Answer 14

• It is more rational to distrust the testimony than to believe the law of nature had been broken
• Violations of truth = most common in the testimony concerning r. miracles
• No such testimony can outweigh our exp. of the regularity of the laws of nature
• No testimony will be sufficient to establish a miracle
• No miracle can be a just foundation for a religion

Question 15

What is a challenge that many scholars have to Hume in relation to a priori arguments?

Answer 15

• Many argue that Hume presents an a priori argument in his first conclusion and an a posteriori argument in his second
• Can an empiricist present an a priori arg. when they argue that all knowledge derives from exp.?

Question 16

In which book did Richard Swinburne outline his view of miracles? What year was it published?

Answer 16

• ‘The Concept of Miracle’

* 1970

Question 17

According to Swinburne, what three observations are necessary to identify a non-repeatable counter-instance to a law of nature?

Answer 17

1) If we have good reason to believe that E has occurred contrary to predictions of L, and we have good reason to believe that events similar to E would not occur again in similar circumstances, there is every reason to believe that L is a law of nature
2) If we tried to modify the law of nature to try to predict event E, then the modified law will give false predictions in other circumstances
3) If we leave the law of nature unmodified, we have good reason to believe that the unmodified law will give correct predictions in all other conceivable circumstances

Question 18

How does Swinburne answer the question of ‘can a non-repeatable counter-instance be believed to have happened’?

Answer 18

• If E is a repeatable counter-instance, then all we would need to do would be to modify L to form a true law of nature that could also predict these repeatable counter-instances
• Both historical and scientific evidence give only limited support to a claim but God can be tested at any time by any person
• Hist. evi. is not just written/verbal testimony, it is also about: physical traces of the event; present effects resulting from the event
• “the wise man…has good reason to believe that E occurred” - “Whether there is such evidence is, of course, another matter.”

Question 19

Swinburne: How can a non-repeatable counter-instance be identified as a miracle?

Answer 19

• It has to be caused by God: to conclude that it was brought about by a rational agent would give a different explanation
- If there is other evi. for G’s existence + if E is consistent w/ G’s character + otherwise unexplained, then it is reasonable to believe that G caused it
• If E occurs that normally occurs by the intentions of humans, but occurs w/o humans, it would be justifiable to claim that a non-material being caused it

Question 20

What does Anthony Flew say about Hume?

Answer 20

• Hume rejects hist. evi. of witnesses and favours the law of nature not being violated ∵ the hist. evi. is often appealing to a singular event that is no longer possible to examine directly
• Contrastingly, the supposed law of nature can be tested at any time by any person

Question 21

Swinburne: Explain the contradictions of Hume’s arguments regarding the contradictory nature of faith claims.

Answer 21

• Hume’s arg. = only valid if the two miracles were in conflict/incompatible. Most alleged miracles do not engender conflict
• Example of fictional conflicting miracles:
1) Devout Catholic priest prays for a miracle to demonstrate the truth of transubstantiation and the tabernacle suddenly levitates.
2) Dedicated Protestant minister prays for a miracle to demonstrate the falsity of transubstantiation and lightning strikes the tabernacle, destroying it.
- These miracles concern doctrine: r. miracles are not of this type
• Most miracles would only show the power of God(s) and his/their concern for his/their people

Question 22

Explain Swinburne’s challenge to Hume’s notion that no miracle has a sufficient number of witnesses.

Answer 22

• S accepts H’s 3 arg.s involving credibility of witnesses to be valid, but makes the point that standards of evi. that H sets are very high
• What constitutes as a sufficient no. of witnesses?
• Tomb of Abbé Paris: H considers the no., integrity, and education of witnesses as irrelevant despite being of exceptional quality - he regards the miraculous nature of the event as sufficient to reject it

Question 23

Explain Swinburne’s challenge to Hume’s notion that people are prone to look for marvels and wonders.

Answer 23

• S does not dispute H’s second part concerning gossip/bias but says that there are other people who are scrupulously honest; only hist. investigation will show which group the witnesses are in
• H seems to believe that all witnesses are deceivers of deceived

Question 24

Explain Swinburne’s challenge to Hume’s notion that sources of miracle stories are from ignorant people.

Answer 24

• S comments that H seems to identify an ignorant nation as one that believes miracles happen
• To make this connection = unjustified

Question 25

What are Swinburne’s three principles for weighing conflicting evidence?

Answer 25

1) Evi. of different kinds should be given different weights; e.g. own memory counts for more than testimony of another witness, unless circumstances suggest otherwise (e.g. drunk).
2) Diff. pieces of evi. should be given diff. weights in accordance w/ any emp. evi. available about their diff. reliability (e.g. how reliable were previous’ testimonies from that witness?)
3) Singular testimony from diff. witnesses should be given more weight against lesser no. of contrary testimonies, unless strong evi. of falsehood (e.g. 5 ppl saying same thing = more persuasive than 1 person saying something contrary, unless the 5 plotted together to give false testimony)