David Hume's Anti Miracle Belief

The problem of miracles is an ancient one that has persisted for most of

human history, but that has been addressed with some depth only in the last few

centuries. The great empiricist philosopher David Hume was one of the first to present an

analysis of miracles that tried to explain why they are created (by human beings

themselves, in Hume’s opinion) and why people are so ready to believe in them. This is

an important field of study, as with greater knowledge of the character of physical law,

one finds more and more (rather than less) accounts of miracles being touted as

exceptions to natural laws. Hume’s ideas on the matter are extremely illuminating and

amazingly enough, are fairly universal in their applicability as regards both time and

place.

In his writings about this subject1, Hume first constructs a logical

framework within which he can then begin to attack the widespread belief in miracles

(Part I, p.534-537). He then proceeds to use this to explain why he thinks that miracles

should not be believed. Further he uses his knowledge of human motivation to lend more

weight to this argument. It must be noted here that nowhere does Hume attack miracles in

themselves. Rather, he attacks our belief of miracles on the grounds of insufficient

evidence for their existence. This also leads him to the conclusion that miracles cannot be

the basis of a system of religion. The argument is outlined in what follows.

In the context of Hume’s philosophy, there are only two kinds of

knowledge – relations of ideas and matters of fact. It is obvious that miracles must fall

into the latter category. Since experience is the basis of reasoning concerning matters of

1 Roger Ariew & Eric Watkins. Modern Philosophy: An antholog...

... middle of paper ...

...igion based on faith (which is the only basis that remains once

reason is dealt with), by remarking that faith is entirely “contrary to custom and

experience”.

The process of reasoning that Hume follows to reach his conclusion is

very logical and is devoid of any serious flaws. The psychological explanations given by

him (argument 2 above) greatly supports his arguments and gives us an insight into the

reason why miracles (in some form or the other) persist in such diverse times and places

and yet seem so similar. (The insight being that the human psychology changes very

slowly at the fundamental level and spawns the same chimaeras over and over). Overall,

this is a brilliantly constructed argument and yet there is nothing subtle or obscure about

6

it. So, I have to say that I agree with his conclusion and also (for the most part) his views

on religion.

7