Can Miracles Happen? Hume and His Critics

Foundations

What Is a Miracle?

• A miracle is usually defined as an event caused by God beyond nature's ordinary powers.
• Not merely rare or unexplained — but a special act of a deity.
• The real question: could evidence ever make belief in one reasonable?
• This deck centers on David Hume's classic challenge.

Key idea: The debate isn't whether strange things happen, but whether testimony could justify believing God acted.

Source: Background in R. Swinburne, The Concept of Miracle (1970).

Hume's Case

The Setup

• David Hume's essay “Of Miracles” appeared in 1748.
• He defines a miracle as a “violation of the laws of nature.”
• Those laws are backed by “firm and unalterable experience.”
• So, he says, the evidence against any miracle is by definition maximal.

Source: D. Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, §10.

Hume's Case

The Maxim

• His rule: no testimony suffices unless its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact it reports.
• Weigh the improbability of the event against the improbability of mistaken or lying witnesses.
• Human testimony often errs; the laws of nature rarely seem to fail.
• So the wise person proportions belief to the evidence — and rejects the miracle.

Hume's rule: Only believe a miracle if the witnesses being wrong would be even more astonishing than the miracle itself.

Source: Hume, Enquiry §10.1.

Hume's Case

His Practical Points

• Hume adds that miracle reports cluster among the “ignorant and barbarous.”
• Rival religions each claim miracles, so they cancel one another out.
• People love wonder and have motives to believe and to embellish.
• These are sociological cautions, not strictly logical proofs.

Source: Hume, Enquiry §10.2.

Replies

The “Violation” Definition

• Critics argue that defining a miracle as a “violation of law” loads the dice.
• Laws describe what nature does on its own; a free agent could act within the system.
• On theism a miracle is not nature breaking, but God adding a cause.
• So Hume's definition may quietly assume nature is closed — the very point in dispute.

Honest note: If God exists, a miracle isn't nature failing — it's a new cause entering. Hume's definition assumes a closed system.

Source: J. Earman, Hume's Abject Failure (2000).

Replies

Probability Done Properly

• John Earman, a secular philosopher, argues Hume's reasoning is muddled.
• On Bayesian probability, strong, independent testimony can lift a low prior.
• “Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence” — but evidence can be extraordinary.
• Hume wrongly treats the prior against miracles as effectively unbeatable.

Key idea: Even a very unlikely event can become credible with enough independent, reliable testimony — the math Hume lacked.

Source: J. Earman, Hume's Abject Failure.

Replies

It Depends on God

• The prior probability of a miracle depends on whether God exists.
• If there is independent reason to think God exists, miracles are not wildly improbable.
• So the miracle question can't be settled apart from the God question.
• Hume's argument is strongest for someone already sure no God acts.

Source: R. Swinburne, The Concept of Miracle; The Existence of God.

What Remains

The Force in Hume

• Hume is right that testimony alone is often weak.
• We should seek multiple independent witnesses and rule out fraud.
• Many miracle claims genuinely fail these tests.
• A reasonable person sets a high — but not infinite — bar.

Useful fact: Hume's lasting contribution: demand strong, independent evidence and exclude deceit before believing.

Source: Discussion in Earman; Swinburne.

Objections

Competing Miracles

• Hume said rival religious miracles cancel out.
• Reply: not all claims are equally evidenced; their quality differs widely.
• A specific, well-attested case isn't refuted by vague claims elsewhere.
• Still, the sheer diversity of claims is a fair caution.

Source: Earman; Swinburne; cf. discussion in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Honest Limits

What Philosophy Can't Do

• Philosophy can't, by itself, prove that a particular miracle happened.
• It can show that Hume's in-principle ban fails.
• Whether any specific miracle occurred is a historical question, case by case.
• The resurrection, for example, must be argued on its own evidence.

Misconception: Defeating Hume doesn't prove any miracle — it just reopens the door to examining the evidence.

Source: Standard treatments of the miracle debate.

Conclusion

The Big Takeaway

• Hume's challenge is serious and still shapes the conversation.
• Yet many philosophers — secular ones included — find his argument flawed.
• Whether to believe a miracle turns on the evidence and on the God question.
• The door Hume tried to bolt shut is, at least, not locked.

In one line: Miracles can't be ruled out in advance; each claim stands or falls on its own evidence.

Source: Hume; Earman; Swinburne.