Moral philosophy, as a branch of philosophy, is a science that investigates human nature. There are two main approaches related to the studying of humans as a creature able to think and compare natural phenomena. The first theory proves that man is born to be active. To be a creator whose work does not contradict natural laws. However, in his philosophical book An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume notices that miracles that can be observed in the world confuse human worldview and way of thinking. The point to discuss in this essay is what is a miracle, a violation of the natural laws or a simple exception from those rules. Should people blindly believe in the miracles, or should they use a sober mind and take into account serious facts and compare them to reveal the truth?
The Scottish empirical philosopher of the XVIIIth century, David Hume, presented his own vision of the miracle phenomenon and discussed this topic from the practical point of view. Thus, he proves that miracle is nothing more than “a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent” (Hume, 86). According to this vision, the definition of the laws of nature is stipulated by “a firm and unalterable experience” (Hume, 85). He points out that according to the fact that any miracle ever observed by people has not much evidence and explanation as any other ordinary thing in the world around; it is supposed to be a violation of the natural laws according to which everything exists.
In spite of the fact that this theory has a detailed explanation and many logical arguments are presented in the book, this vision of the phenomenon was criticized in the XVIIIth century. Inadequate reception of his point of view disappointed the philosopher so much that he felt himself to be stillborn from the writing. However, sharp polemics of the XVIIIth did not make any reasonable and logical conclusion relater to the topic in question. There remained a lot of different opinions, and the dispute was not resolved.
Modern philosophers and scientists also continue to study David Hume’s treatise and express new opinions and visions of the disputable question. This essay is to compare Hume’s explanation of the miracle phenomenon and the modern one. The question of whether a miracle is worth being trusted or should real facts be taken into account is going to be answered.
David Hume, in his philosophical book An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, chapter X gives the following definition to the word miracle:
Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, 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, 85).
This definition is supported by the following explanation that seems to be logical. A miracle is an event always limited in duration and in rate. It does not happen every day. It can be seen to everyone. Thus, a particular time and place are needed for it to happen.
The second point that is a key argument in the polemics implies contradicting evidence. It means that eyewitnesses present information about a particular event full of various details and visual facts. Thus, everything that does not coincide in the main is not true. A is not B, B is not C – the simple mathematical law seems to be appropriate in this situation. Thus, if the phenomenon is false, it cannot exist in the world. And if it exists and can be seen, it is a violation of the natural law. At first sight, such an explanation seems to be right as it provides a logical algorithm for its explanation.
However, it cannot be easily accepted as an axiom. The modern scientist Michael Levin points out that “miracles are not violations of such laws but instead are positive instances of those laws” (Miracles). His explanation that follows the next seem to be more acceptable as it presents a more objective vision of things and the world: “this is because laws of nature do not, and are not meant to, account for or describe events with supernatural causes – but only those with natural causes” (Miracles).
Hume’s vision of a miracle as a transgression is based on the epistemological approach to things existence. In other words, everything is subordinated to the unwritten nature laws. Everything that does not correspond to it is controversial and rebellious. If it rebels, it is a violation. A simple definition has a simple explanation.
However, I do not fully agree with this statement. Any event or fact that is recognized to be of supernatural origin should obligatorily violate natural laws. Why should they? They confuse only the human way of thinking and world perception. Other things in the world around remain in harmony. Thus, the miracle is not a transgression. It is a simple exception to the existing rule. If a scientist is not able to explain a particular miracle because of the lack of knowledge, it does not mean that the miracle has no right to exist. To err is human but not natural. Humans spoil the Earth and not vice versa. In a case of a miracle as an exception, such exception only evidences that natural laws people got used to believing in and interrupt are not actually the laws. Maybe the miracle is also the hidden law that occurs not so often as the other ones.
The other interesting point to discuss is whether people should believe in miracles or should they take into account serious facts that prove miracles or refute them?
David Hume, in his philosophical book An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, convinces the reader that any talk about a particular miracle does not have serious validity. The first argument he calls is that miracle appears before a small number of people who are often interested in it. It relates first of all to the religious miracles when some humans could see Jesus face or Maria’s image. As a rule, everybody who saw similar miracles was religious who strived to see that. Hallucinations could be possible. The second explanation consists of the psychological side of human nature. People who were brought up in fairytales continue to believe in them, even being grown ups. A feeling of wonder seems to be pleasant for one group of people and convenient methods for another group to manipulate the first. The third explanation presents the subjective opinion of the author, I suppose. Thus, he points out that belief in miracles is a sign of barbarism that is not appropriate to be in contemporary society. At last, he stresses that a lot of evidence about a particular miracle is contradictive in general. There is no reasonable explanation why people who saw the same event describe it with different words and details. Thus, miracles are false, fantastic, and self-accusing. Of course, such argumentation is reasonable enough, especially for the pragmatic people who got used to trusting facts.
However, there are cases when scientists find evidence of the most unbelievable miracles. I mean the famous Shroud of Turin, the famous funeral cerement of Jesus Christ. This shroud actually proved the existence of the man who was supposed to be legendary. It proved all the facts described in the Bible, a book that still raises many disputes among historians and other scientists. Here appears a dilemma, should people believe in the other miracles depicted in the Holy Book having only the shroud as the proof or should they look for the other arguments?
David Hume points out that historians are the only people worthy of being trusted. Their works are based on facts and visible artefacts left by people. However, in my opinion, this statement seems to be disputable. David Hume also realizes this fact and hints that historians may fail as well as their fact interpretation may be subjective. The perception of the information presented by the historians may also be different. For instance, if any historian insisted on the fact that there was a solar eclipse in 1224, we would accept it is a true fact that does not need any confirmation as a solar eclipse is a common phenomenon for our life. On the other hand, if a historian was to convince us that king Louis XIV got up happy after his death like it was in the case with Jesus Christ, we would think about it as a miracle because arising from the dead is impossible.
Thus, natural laws are valid in some cases and wrong in other ones.
Summing up all the said above, I would like to say that the philosophical book An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding by David Hume was a revolutionary philosophical work in the XVIIIth century. It presented a new vision of the miracle definition and miracle conception. Being based on the knowledge of those times, some principles of the theory were incorrect. Thus, I do not agree that a miracle is a transgression of natural laws. Thus, the miracle is not a violation.
A law of nature cannot be violated by natural forces. It can only be undermined as a genuine law. This happens if something natural occurs that the law was supposed to account for but, in fact, could not. But neither can the law of nature be violated by a non-natural force. Nor can it be undermined, assuming we can distinguish natural from non-natural occurrences. A law of nature is, whatever else it may be, a true description of both the physically and logically possible occurrences within its scope (Levine).
On the other hand, I fully agree with the author who stresses that blind belief is dangerous for society. First of all, it destroys human psychics. The second reason why it is considered to be risky, it allows other people to manipulate the human masses. The most brilliant example of such manipulation is sect. The leaders of such organizations use miracles as the main leverage for influence on others.
However, I fully agree with the opinion of David Hume, who insists on the necessity of true facts which prove any miracle. But in this case, facts should be tested and approved by the overwhelming majority of historians. Otherwise, they are worth no more than simple rumours.
Bibliography
Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. New York: Forgotten Books, 1984.
Levine, Michael. Miracles. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 1996.