Born in April 1711, David Hume was a philosopher, economist, and historian in his time. In matters relating to politics, he was known as a “Whig.” At that point, being a “Whig” meant that in the end, Hume wanted the monarchy of England not to have too much power and therefore did everything he could to reduce their influence. Insofar as Hume loathed the monarchy, he was famously known for his philosophical standpoint and views. Being the first chief philosopher to debate on the matters of empiricism, which meant that the knowledge of humans comes from years of experience, Hume did not believe in the notion of an all-powerful God. Subsequently, this led him to become one of the key philosophers in contemporary times to have an entirely representational view of all things and vehemently rejected the idea that people are made in the image of God. Having this understanding made him exceedingly skeptical of all religious teachings, which meant he was without question doubtful of their validity and applicability in the lives of ordinary people.
In the end, this made Hume an openly outspoken atheist at a time when religious belief was ubiquitous throughout Europe. Ultimately, this led Hume to have outright beliefs on the notion of miracles as they relate to natural laws of which he drew a hypothesis concerning Christian life in this aspect. This paper looks at Hume’s interpretation of miracles and using his conclusions draws remarks vis-à-vis Christian life according to Hume’s perspectives. Moreover, it relates Hume’s understanding of miracles to Desecrates’ and debates whether it is admissible to argue the justification of supernatural or religious claims.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
A miracle is a word that originates from the Latin word mirari, which means to wonder or a spectacle experienced in a person’s life. Further definition reveals miracles to be events that are non-explicable autonomously through natural laws. As such, a miracle that is witnessed by many people brings about wonder since it appears to permeate a certain degree of human unreachability and non-influence which also transcends natural laws. Throughout history, an appeal to miracles has always influenced individuals notions and various forms of theism in the sense that since miracles are not easily explainable, they can only best be described as acts that are reserved for particular deities. The most common approach of defining miracles throughout the ages has been to relate them to an interruption to the order and course of nature 1 . Many religious scholars support this argument, and William Adams goes even further to place an unwavering background on the subject by saying that uniformity in nature’s discourse is necessary for people to believe in the occurrence and saturation of miracles. Therefore, in light of his perspective on miracles and nature, it is safe to purport that a miracle is in effect an event that abundantly exceeds the creative power of Mother Nature. Here, “nature” is broadly construed to comprise individuals and all creatures who have a substantial resemblance to human beings. Other variations on nature’s nomenclature include the fact that miracles represent an event that would only happen due to an intervention of an agent that is not bound by nature itself. Such definitions contradict David Hume’s perspective on nature 2 .
Hume famously defined miracles as violations of nature’s laws, and since then, this definition has been the focus of engaging discussions both in the theological and secular worlds 3 . In defining miracles according to this perspective, Hume evidently goes on and signifies an event that goes beyond mere changes in the formal course of nature, which consequently raises the bar higher for the qualification of an event or something as a miraculous happening. In having such a disposition, Hume inadvertently reinforces the prospective epistemic connotation should a supernatural event take place and is unambiguously authenticated. Involving the concepts of natural laws to the definition and subsequent understanding of miracles is usually problematic, and this has caused innumerable writers to find it indefensible. By themselves, the laws of nature are highly complex and rigid in both their structure and formation. This resultantly makes defining miracles, let alone defending their authenticity, in relation to nature’s laws unattainable. However, Hume had the notion and thought that miracles were simply impossible. Besides, being a naturalist solidified his idea that any visible effect that would result in the breakage of nature’s laws was practically not plausible. His opinions on miracles were the same as his perspectives on induction and the fact that humans learn from experience and not an existential God.
One of Hume’s great explanation on miracles was the “cause and effect” relationship in our everyday lives. He publicly acknowledges that certain actions lead to special effects and that from accepting and recognizing this, steps towards the future are procured. Having a basis and thinking that no external force can affect the lives of individuals, Hume was categorical in stating that the more experience people have, the more certain it is to judge future actions and effects. To dispel miracles, Hume gives four primary arguments. Firstly, Hume contends that the witnesses who experience and acknowledge miraculous events are usually not sane or have a deficient education that their testimonies are in effect considered invaluable. Secondly, Hume argues that the natural human instinct is usually astounded by what is unusual and in light of this, it was Hume’s unwavering conviction that religious people and establishments often exploited this to their own egotistical advantages. The third argument was that Hume thought miracles only occurred in barbaric and ignorant nations. Lastly, the religious ambiguity that superseded miracles made them lose their authenticity since every religious movement was claiming to have miracles and that their miracles were real.
On the contrary, René Descartes, who was born as a son of an aristocrat, works to prove the existence of God and consequently the authenticity and acceptance of miracles. Through casual arguments, Descartes dissipates Hume’s arguments on “cause and effect” saying that there has to be a reality in a cause which represents the power of an Almighty God and the effect which stands for human beings and even nature itself. According to Descartes, an all Powerful deity affected the universe and all things we see in the physical world; since He saw, He also has the power to alter the normal occurrence of daily circumstances to his pleasure, thereby leading to a permeation of miracles in the lives of his or her adherents 4 . Therefore, Hume’s views on the authenticity of miracles profoundly contradict Descartes.’ Ultimately, the two philosophers seem to be in a tag of war in their opinions and perspectives on the matter relating to religious theology. Over the ages, debates have raged on concerning the authenticity of their claims and their implications in real life. It is not copiously clear as to who has won the arguments, but if events in the contemporary world are anything to go by, Hume’s philosophical conjectures are highly favored. In conclusion, this brings about the question on the possibility of rational justification of supernatural or religious claims. In essence, religion and by extension faith has come to a point whereby individuals have different meanings regarding the subject. With this in mind, the question on justifiability is unique to each person.
Bibliography
"Descartes & The Empiricists." Phi205.Blogspot.Com . Last modified 2017. Accessed June 23, 2017. http://phi205.blogspot.com/2008/01/hume-on-miracles.html .
Hume, David, and Tom Buechamp. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 1748 . New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
McGrew, Timothy. "Miracles." Plato.Stanford.Edu . Last modified 2017. Accessed June 23, 2017. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/miracles/ .
Sherlock, Thomas. The Trial Of The Witnesses Of The Resurrection Of Jesus, 1729 . Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1843.
