Hume’s Critique

Question 1

How did Hume pull apart his definition of miracles?

Answer 1

-A key critique of miracles is offered by David Hume, an 18th-century empiricist philosopher who strongly rejected their credibility
-Hume defines a miracle as “a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity”, meaning an event caused by God that breaks the regular and universal laws observed in nature
-While he accepts this definition, Hume argues that belief in such events is irrational, because our experience consistently supports the reliability of natural laws.
-He claims that no reported miracle has ever been supported by evidence strong enough to outweigh the overwhelming testimony in favour of nature’s regularity

Question 2

Why would Hume argue miracles shouldn’t always be believed?

Answer 2

-Hume argues that miracles are never credible because they violate the laws of nature, which are supported by consistent and universal human experience
-He writes that no testimony can prove a miracle “unless the falsehood of that testimony would be more miraculous than the miracle itself,” meaning it is always more likely that a witness is lying or mistaken than that a natural law has truly been broken
-Hume adds that miracle reports often come from uneducated or emotionally charged contexts, which makes them even less reliable
-He supports this with a principle similar to Occam’s Razor: the simplest explanation is usually the right one. In the case of something like Jesus’ resurrection, Hume suggests we must logically ask what is more likely: that those reporting it were wrong, or that someone truly came back to life. According to Hume, the rational answer is the first. Belief in miracles, he argues, often stems not from reason, but from emotion, superstition, or a desire for the miraculous, which makes such claims less reliable and more extraordinary than necessary

Question 3

How does Hume question the credibility of ancient testimonies?

Answer 3

-Hume also critiques Christian miracle claims by questioning the credibility of ancient religious testimony, especially regarding key events in the life of Jesus
-He argues that such miracles are often reported in times and places where people were more likely to be influenced by ignorance, emotion, or religious zeal, making their testimony unreliable
-In relation to Christianity, Hume points specifically to events like the resurrection, the virgin birth, and Jesus’ various healing miracles as examples of claims that go against consistent human experience

Question 4

What is a quote from Hume about the lack of credibility associated with the the death of Jesus?

Answer 4

-He writes, “It is no miracle that a man, dead, should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country
-But it is a miracle that the testimony of a man should be true, who says he has seen a dead man rise”
-This quotation reveals Hume’s deeper concern: that the credibility of miracle reports is weaker than the natural law they supposedly break
-For Christian realists, this is a major challenge, as it undercuts the historical foundation upon which much of Christian doctrine rests. Believers must therefore rely on faith or spiritual conviction to uphold such miracles, since Hume argues that reason and experience alone cannot justify belief in them