Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (Section X: Of Miracles) - A Critique

Miracles have been fundamental to many religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism among many. Miracles have often filled believers with awe and enhanced their faith in their respective God. For the non-believers however, miracles lie among other supernatural phenomena that appear rather dubious. Skeptics think that miracles are impossible and that there are explanations for the events that are attributed as miracles. David Hume is one such skeptic, and he made that clear in his writings notably in Section X of his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, “Of Miracles”. This essay examines his arguments and analyzes his criticisms.

For ease of analysis, we shall first examine Section X in chronological order, point by point. In part one of Section X, Hume starts off by claiming that “our evidence for the truth of the Christian religion is less than the evidence for the truth of our senses”. Here he claims that the testimony of the authors of the Bible is no more believable than our own senses, and that the testimony of the experiences “must diminish in passing from them to their disciples”. Hume then goes on to argue that evidence is more important than experience. Experience he argues, “is apt to lead us into errors”, thus “a wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence”. Furthermore, he argues that the testimony of a “man delirious, or noted for falsehood and villainy, has no manner of authority with us”.

While Hume certainly makes a valid point here, it must be pointed out that it is not what kind of miracle it is, but rather what the significance is. The testimony may or may not have been flawed, but religion is based on teachings and stories, so no matter what; it really is not the validity of the testimonies that are important. If the validity and truth of these stories are to be questioned, then we would have no place for the modern stories that have a good moral behind them.

Moreover, contrary to popular belief of skeptics, religion is not based on miracles. Granted miracles play a big part in the many stories in the Bible, but it is not the miracles that are important. Rather, it is the message that is important. In the wedding in Cana where Jesus turns water into wine, the message is not so much that Jesus can do anything even changing the chemical make-up of liquid but that He is someone who provides, someone who is kind, and so on. Perhaps that act of changing water into wine may not have been a miracle as He could have simply had some of his own wine that He brought in, but these people being men of great faith, may have construed it that way. Still, it does not matter what extra detail as the message is there. God is good, God is merciful, and God will provide.

Next, Hume explains that miracles are only miracles because people exaggerate such that an event “instead of being only marvelous, is really miraculous”. He provides an anecdote of an Indian prince “who refused to believe the effects of frost” although no one in Southern India “could have experience that water did not freeze in cold climates”. However, upon observation that water does indeed go from liquid to “perfect hardness”, it may have struck them with so much awe such that it becomes construed as miraculous.

This may or may not be true and it would be no surprise if it were true for some of the said miracles in the Bible. However, I refer back to my point about these writers being men of great faith, as they would be quick to label something like that as a miracle. Despite that, the miracles that were described were not simple phenomena such as water freezing. Rather, it usually involves healing, or provision of necessary items – the healing of leprosy victims, raising Lazarus from the dead, and feeding thousands with 5 loaves and 2 fishes. So it could not necessarily be due to the witnesses of these miracles not knowing elements of science and nature.
Hume provides his definition of a miracle after a few pages into the section, defining it as “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”. It seems Hume was arguing that evidence against miracles lie in the laws of nature. John Earman comments that “if the argument Hume gives for this assertion is correct, then it is irrelevant that the alleged miracle has a divine or supernatural origin”[1].

Hume provides a few examples for that definition before then claiming 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 endeavors to establish; and even in that case there us a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains after deducting the inferior”.
Here it seems Hume is begging the question and is not really providing an argument against miracles. If miracles do not exist, how can the falsehood be more miraculous? Is that then, not a paradox?

In part two of Section X, Hume makes four points that renders miracles improbable. He first argues that no one respectable, with a great reputation to uphold, has ever officially attested to any miracles. Hume seems to be committing the fallacy of argumentum ad authoritarian, as he requires some sort of authority figure to validate the existence of miracles. Still, he does have a good reason to, as being an intellectual, verification is important.

Perhaps there might not have been any authority figure attesting to miracles occurring back in 1748, when Hume wrote his book. However, in the last century, there have been many cases where miracles have been documented and attested by men of reputation and status. For example, one of France’s greatest physicians in the 20th century and Nobel Prize winner for medicine, Alexis Carrel attested to one of miracles that took place at Lourdes[2]. Carrel wanted to see for himself, the reported fast rate of healing of wounds from Lourdes[3]. On the train there on 28th May 1902, he met a girl named Marie Bailly who was suffering from tuberculosis peritonitis[4], a common affliction at the time. Due to her condition, a pitcher-full of Lourdes water was poured onto her abdomen and after about half an hour later, her pulse began to slow and her abdomen had flattened – the abdominal tumor disappeared. Carrel did not admit the experience as he feared it would jeopardize his career, and even wrote an article that blasted the believers for being too gullible. However, he wrote about his experience in a book entitled The Voyage to Lourdes eventually published in 1944. Thus in this case, despite it being almost 200 years late, a respectable and reputable person in Alexis Carrel has attested to the miraculous event. There have perhaps been other such reputable people attesting to miracles, but the Marie Bailly case has been one of the most documented cases of miracles especially in the case of Lourdes.

The second point Hume makes against the existence of miracles was that people believe in miracles because the emotions, the hoo-hah, and the hype that comes from it. As the idea of a miracle is such a positive and perhaps marvelous one, people tend to be more ready to believe it.
From a psychological point of view, Hume certainly makes a good point. After all, it is only natural that human beings want to be associated with something good and something significant. In addition, the social desirability factor – share the same beliefs as others in order to fit in – plays a part in the belief of miracles.

Take the World Cup or Olympics for example – those not interested in sports or competition would suddenly get sucked into the hype surrounding them, and would probably pick a team to support. In similar circumstances, perhaps if a person you may or may not know happens to discover another planet or find proof of aliens or perhaps build a time machine, you would definitely love to find out more and be more ready to believe it. Tabloid news has shown in recent years how believable rumors can be. Hence Hume may be right in this respect.

Hume also elaborates that the kind of people that tell of miracles seem to be people who have nothing better to do, and that “there is no kind of report which rises so easily, and spreads so quickly, especially in country places and provincial towns”. Even a simple event such as marriage between two people would generate such hype, as “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.” As the reports are so well known, no one bothers to validate them, therefore committing the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

This leads to Hume’s third point, that “all supernatural and miraculous relations” seem to come from those “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.”

Hume’s second and third points can be taken together such that miracles are believed by people in small, ignorant towns where everybody loves being associated with anything good. There is evidence of such an event especially in the case of the Medjugorje Shrine, in Bosnia, where there are claims that the Virgin Mary has appeared at least 40,000 times[5].

However, in regards to the miracles at Lourdes, there are very strict steps in verifying miracles. In fact, it has been so stringent that many possible miracles might have been dismissed altogether[6][7]. Before a case is verified as a miracle, a medical committee vets through it, before the church verifies it[8][9]. The recognition of a miracle takes years as a result, but there have been about 66 cases[10] documented already that is proof of the existence of miracles.

The fourth point by Hume is that miracles in one religion serve to ‘overthrow’ another religion, such as Christianity overthrowing Islam. An established religion, Hume writes, destroys a rival by destroying the credit of their miracles while showing evidence of their own. He also then claims that people could be been forced to believe in miracles when a conquering power or authority in power instills their religious teachings among the citizens.

Perhaps this may have been true during the crusades. However, in reality miracles do not serve such a purpose. Miracles play a big role in many stories in the Bible, Quran, or Torah. These stories of miracles serve to teach, not to discount other religions.

Hume goes on to claim that:
“It is experience only, which gives authority to human testimony; and it is the same experience, which assures us of the laws of nature. When, therefore, these two kinds of experience are contrary, we have nothing to do but subtract the one from the other, and embrace an opinion, either on one side or the other, with that assurance which arises from the remainder.”
It should not be a choice between testimony and the laws of nature, which Hume claims would lead to “an entire annihilation”. His hyperbole is inadequate, for as it is not as rigid as it seems. After all, even magic goes against the laws of nature in a sense, but it does not cause any annihilation.

Hume then concludes the section by arguing that religion “is founded on Faith, not on reason” and were probably exaggerated or made-up by the “barbarous and ignorant” writers in the Bible.
It is interesting to note how Hume examines our belief in miracles rather than the miracles itself. However, as Hume himself noted, religion is based on Faith, not reason. Just because you may not have seen it for yourself, does not mean it does not exist, the anecdote in appendix 1 shows a creative example. As my parish priest, Father John Rate said, “you cannot make a non-believer believe in miracles, because it is a different context.”[11]

In addition, he says that “miracles are subjective” as fellow priest, Father Tony O’Brien agrees, “context and faith is important, and it depends what people believe miracles are. For I believe miracles happen to me every day.”[12] Most notably, John Locke in A Discourse of Miracles[13] also claims that the definition of miracles varies from person to person.

In conclusion, it is really how someone defines what a miracle is, and what a miracle means to someone. The stories of miracles are meant to teach us things about God. These stories are not meant to make us (believers) expect miracles all the time, as not everyone can win the lottery, recover from cancer, and start to see again. These occasional miracles serve to let believers know that God is still present, and that our faith will be rewarded. Hume may have put some valid points across, but perhaps in his case, there is more to miracles than being stories conjured by barbarous and ignorant people who want to destroy rival religions.

[1] Earman, John. “Hume’s Abject Failure: The argument against miracles.” (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)
[2] Persaud, Raj. Dr. “Where Scientists are looking for God.” 16 Jan 2002: n-pag. On-line. Internet. 1 Oct 2008. Available WWW: http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/news/Jan2002/MoreOnLourdesMiracleMSCure.html
[3] Jaki, Stanley, L. Rev. “Two Lourdes Miracles and a Nobel Laureate: What really happened?” The Linacre Quarterly. Catholic Medical Association, 1999.
[4] eCureme.com, “Tuberculosis”. 2003: n-pag. On-line. Internet. 1 Oct 2008. Available WWW: http://www.ecureme.com/emyhealth/Pediatrics/Tuberculosis.asp
Tuberculosis peritonitis involves an infection and fluid build-up in the abdomen. It is uncommon in adolescents and rare in children. This is often very difficult to diagnose and is often missed. In addition to build-up of fluid in the abdomen, symptoms may include fever, weight loss, and weakness. Even with testing of the fluid, it is difficult to diagnose and may necessitate laparoscopy to make confirm diagnosis.

[5] Caldwell, Simon. “Pope finally launches crackdown on world’s largest illicit Catholic shrine and suspends ‘dubious’ priest”. Mail Online. 3 Sep 2008: n-pag. On-line. Internet. 1 Oct 2008. Available WWW: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1052230/Pope-finally-launches-crackdown-worlds-largest-illicit-Catholic-shrine-suspends-dubious-priest.html
[6] Chrisafis, Angelique. & Torres, Luc. “Lourdes finds cure for lack of miracles: a less strict definition”. The Guardian. 9 Mar. 2006: n-pag. On-line. Internet. 1 Oct 2008. Available WWW: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/09/france.religion
[7] Campbell, Matthew. “Lourdes lobbies for more miracles”. Times Online: The Sunday Times. 2 Apr. 2006: n-pag. On-line. Internet. 1 Oct 2008. Available WWW: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article701085.ece
[8] Catholic Online. “Doctor who analyzes reported miracles at Lourdes: Interview with Patrick Theillier, Director of Shrine’s medical office”. 23 Aug. 2004: n-pag. On-line. Internet. 1 Oct 2008. Available WWW: http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1252
[9] “The scientific aspect must be distinguished from the spiritual. The cure must exceed the known laws of the illness' evolution, and the person who has experienced the miracle must also recognize the spiritual meaning of the event.
For the cure to be recognized as a miracle, it must fulfill seven criteria. It is necessary to verify the illness, which must be serious, with an irrevocable prognosis. The illness must be organic or caused by injuries. There must be no treatment at the root of the cure. The latter must be sudden and instantaneous.
Finally, the renewal of functions must be total and lasting, without convalescence.”
[10] Jaki, Stanley, L. Rev. “Two Lourdes Miracles and a Nobel Laureate: What really happened?”
[11] Rate, John. Fr. Personal Interview. 5 Oct. 2008.
[12] O’Brien, Tony. Fr. Personal Interview. 5 Oct 2008.
[13] Locke, John. “A Discourse of Miracles”. The Works of John Locke. Vol. 9. (Germany: Scientia Verlag Aalen)