Modern Skepticism on Miracles

Most modern thinkers who reject miracles trace their reasoning to the Scottish skeptic David Hume (1711–1776). Hume provided what many believe to be the most formidable challenge to a supernaturalist perspective: he argued that miracles are inherently incredible.

Hume laid out three primary arguments against miracles: philosophical, historical, and religious. His philosophical argument is based on the incredibility of claiming that natural laws are ever contravened. His historical argument challenges whether miracles have ever had credible witnesses. His religious argument stems from the self-canceling nature of similar miracle claims that abound in all religions.

Hume’s Philosophical Argument Against Miracles

Building on his empirical epistemology, Hume launched his attack on miracles with the assertion, “I flatter myself that I have discovered an argument… which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion, and consequently will be useful as long as the world endures.” Hume’s reasoning is as follows:

1. A wise person proportions belief to the evidence.
2. An event that can be established on infallible experience can be, with full assurance, expected to reoccur in the future.
3. The reliability of evidence derived from witnesses and human testimony establishes proof or probability, as it is corroborated by other reports and evidence.
4. All circumstances should be considered in judging probability, and the ultimate standard is how the reports comport with personal experience and observation.
5. Where personal experience is not the same, the person should keep a contrary judgment and subject the question to thorough argument.
6. Any contradictions among witnesses should be regarded with suspicion. Suspicion should also arise if the witnesses are few in number, of “doubtful character,” have a vested interest in what they affirm, hesitate in their testimony, or assert it too vigorously.
7. “But when the fact attested is such a one as has seldom fallen under our observation, here is a contest of two opposite experiences; of which the one destroys the other as far as its force goes, and the superior can only operate on the mind by the force which remains.”
8. A miracle violates the laws of nature, which have, by “firm and unalterable experience” been established.
9. Therefore, “the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.”
10. Experience is direct and full proof against the existence of any miracle.

Hume’s argument can be summarized as follows:

1. A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature.
2. Firm and unalterable experience has established these laws of nature.
3. A wise person proportions belief to evidence.
4. Therefore, the proof against miracles is overwhelming.

Hume concluded, “There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event. Otherwise, the event would not merit that appellation.”

Evaluation of Hume’s Philosophical Argument

Hume’s argument has significant weaknesses. His “uniform” experience either begs the question or engages in special pleading. It begs the question if Hume presumes to know that experience is uniform in advance of the evidence. How can one know that all possible experience will confirm naturalism without access to all possible experiences, past, present, and future? If Hume means “uniform” experience in the sense of select experiences of some persons who have not encountered a miracle, this is special pleading, as others claim to have experienced miracles.

C. S. Lewis highlighted this flaw, stating: “Now of course we must agree with Hume that if there is absolutely ‘uniform experience’ against miracles, if in other words, they have never happened, then they never have. Unfortunately, we know the experience against them to be uniform only if we know that all the reports of them are false. And we can know all the reports to be false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle.”

Moreover, Hume does not weigh evidence objectively; he adds up the evidence against miracles. For instance, death occurs regularly, whereas resurrection occurs rarely. Therefore, he argues we must reject the latter. Hume said, “It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden, because such a kind of death 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.”

Hume’s concept of adding up events to determine truth is flawed. Even if a few resurrections actually occurred, according to Hume’s principles, one should not believe them. However, truth is not determined by majority vote. Hume commits a logical fallacy by arguing that something is true because it is believed by most people.

Hume’s Historical Argument Against Miracles

Hume’s historical argument questions whether there have ever been credible witnesses to miracles. He argued that no miracle is attested by a sufficient number of men of such unquestioned good sense, education, and learning to secure us against delusion. He claimed there are not enough witnesses of undoubted integrity to place them beyond all suspicion of deceit. Furthermore, he asserted that miracles have not been performed in such a public manner and in so celebrated a part of the world as to render detection unavoidable.

Evaluation of Hume’s Historical Argument

Hume’s historical argument is based on the false premise that all alleged miracles are equally credible. However, the credibility of witnesses and the reliability of their testimony vary. The New Testament miracles are attested by contemporary eyewitnesses, unlike many miracle stories in other religions that appear generations later. The reliability of each witness to a miracle must be evaluated on its own merits. Hume’s reasoning assumes that all witnesses are equally reliable, which is not the case.

Arguments from Science

Since the rise of modern science, it has been common to claim that miracles are unscientific. Critics argue that miracles are contrary to the nature of scientific procedure for handling irregular or exceptional events. However, scientific arguments against miracles are based on a restrictive definition of science that deals only with repeatable events. Science also deals with singularities, such as the big bang origin of the universe, which is a radical singularity. It is unreasonable to rule out supernatural causes for singularities that demonstrate signs of divine intervention.

Methodological Naturalism

Scientific arguments against miracles often rely on methodological naturalism, which does not admit the possibility of identifying an event as a miracle. However, explanations that cover regular events do not necessarily apply to singularities. For instance, natural laws account for the operation of things, but they do not account for the origin of all things. When a singularity is not known to be produced by natural causes and demonstrates signs of divine intervention, there are positive reasons to accept it as a miracle.

Hume’s arguments against miracles are not successful. They either beg the question by assuming that miracles are impossible or fail to consider credible evidence for miracles. Properly understood, both philosophical and scientific objections to miracles do not preclude their possibility. Miracles, as extraordinary events demonstrating divine intervention, are credible within the framework of a theistic worldview. Thus, belief in miracles remains rational and supported by substantial evidence.

Were the Disciples Deceived Regarding Miracles?

The claim that Jesus and His disciples performed miracles, which served as evidence of their divine commission, was accepted by their contemporaries. The important question arises: Were the disciples and the people deceived?

The Intelligence of the Age

It is important to recognize the intellectual environment during Jesus’ time. Greek literature had peaked, and Roman civilization was at its zenith. The Old Testament was complete, and Jewish scholars and priests were active in the Sanhedrin. Philosophers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle had already laid the groundwork for human thought, and their works were well known. The prevalent philosophies included skepticism, which mocked religion and denied the possibility of truth, and Epicureanism, which sought happiness through ease and luxury. Stoicism, though noble in its principles, was cold and indifferent to human suffering.

Jewish Alexandrian philosophy, which combined Platonic doctrines with Jewish theology, was also influential. The age was one of great intellectual development and enlightenment, contradicting any notion that the people were easily deceived.

Eyewitnesses to Miracles

The New Testament miracles were public and observed by diverse witnesses, including skeptics and intellectuals. The miracles of Jesus were not performed in secrecy but were open to scrutiny by all. For example, the raising of Lazarus was witnessed by many, including Jesus’ opponents. These events were not hidden but occurred openly, inviting investigation and scrutiny.

The Nature of the Miracles

Jesus’ miracles were varied and included healing the blind, curing leprosy, raising the dead, and controlling nature. These acts were immediate and complete, not partial or gradual. For instance, the healing of the man born blind and the raising of Lazarus after four days were undeniable and immediate. These miracles could not be explained by natural means or trickery, as they were beyond human capability.

The Miracles in Context

The miracles were performed over a significant period, spanning the ministry of Jesus and the early church. They were not confined to a single location but occurred in various places, from villages to cities. This widespread occurrence provided ample opportunity for verification and criticism.

The Disciples’ Sincerity

The disciples’ willingness to endure persecution and death for their beliefs is a strong testament to their sincerity. They had no worldly gain to pursue by propagating a lie. If the miracles were fraudulent, it is inconceivable that they would endure such hardships for a known falsehood. Their lives and deaths strongly indicate their genuine belief in the miracles they witnessed and performed.

The Response to Miracles

Both friends and foes acknowledged the miracles. Jewish leaders, although attributing Jesus’ powers to demonic forces, did not deny the reality of His miracles. Pagan writers like Celsus and Emperor Julian admitted Jesus’ miraculous acts, though they offered alternative explanations such as magic. The Talmud also acknowledges Jesus’ miracles but attributes them to sorcery. The absence of any substantial denial of the miracles’ occurrence from contemporary sources underscores their acceptance as genuine events.

The Propagation of Miracles

The gospel writers documented these miracles, and their accounts were widely circulated during the lifetimes of eyewitnesses. This provided an opportunity for anyone to dispute the claims if they were false. The absence of any contemporary refutation speaks volumes about the credibility of these accounts.

Philosophical and Historical Criticisms

Philosophers like David Hume argued against the credibility of miracles, suggesting that they are violations of natural laws and thus inherently incredible. However, Hume’s arguments rest on the assumption that natural laws are unchangeable and universally applicable without exception, which presupposes the nonexistence of a supernatural being capable of intervening in the natural world.

Scientific Perspectives on Miracles

Science deals with repeatable phenomena and natural laws. However, the singular nature of miracles places them outside the realm of regular scientific inquiry. The creation of the universe, acknowledged by science, is itself a singular event that defies natural explanation, similar to biblical miracles. Therefore, scientific objections to miracles based on their non-repeatability are not valid against the possibility of supernatural occurrences.

Conclusion on Miracles

The miracles performed by Jesus and His disciples were public, varied, and witnessed by many. They were not acts of trickery but genuine supernatural interventions. The intellectual climate of the time, the sincerity and sacrifices of the disciples, and the absence of contemporary refutation all support the credibility of these miracles. Philosophical and scientific arguments against miracles often rely on presuppositions that exclude the supernatural a priori, rather than evaluating the evidence impartially. Thus, belief in biblical miracles is rational and supported by substantial evidence.

By Christian Publishing House

Related Articles

The Miracles of Jesus—Fact or Fiction?

Bible Miracles—Their Credibility and Intent

SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY AND THE CHRISTIAN

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN DEVOTIONALS

CHRISTIAN FICTION