Do You Believe in Miracles?

Let me ask you a question, do you believe in miracles? Or, more appropriately, do you consider, that in today’s scientific era, it is illogical to relate a fact out of common sense, to one that would establish a witness for the intervention of a supernatural being? Here’s a moment to think a about it. Let me guess, you’re sitting there trying to make up your mind. Don’t worry; you’re not the first person that does not believe in miracles. In the past, some two centuries ago, Scottish philosopher David Hume did not believe either. And probably you have good reason not to either. But, let’s not diverse.

My focus is primarily on one of the many arguments philosophers have debated over for years. Does David Hume’s idea of ‘induction’ support his argument against his appeal to the laws of nature in his account of a miracle? Presently, the answer to that question varies. Some say it does, some say it does not. And as we will find out later, the answer can be either, depending on individual perspective. Personally, I believe Hume’s discussion on miracles can be said to be at times inconsistent with his earlier discussion of induction and causality, but overall, in a broader sense, his theories of induction can be related to his account on miracles.

But before we discuss this idea further, let’s firstly recapitulate Hume’s position on induction and the arguments against the event of a miracle. Hume’s idea of induction is an argument for human justification of beliefs. He suggests human beliefs are based on experience; that the sun may not rise tomorrow is logically possible but in reality logic can’t really prove it will. So, Hume comes up with his own argument; that we use our experience of the sun having risen every day in the past,...

... middle of paper ...

...m convictions and evidence that cannot be justified by argument. In a simple and assertive way of putting it, Hume showed us that common sense and science are matters of faith. The faith which Hume so greatly defends, we have no way of avoiding or resisting. It is fair to conclude, that while Hume attempts to refute the existence of a miracle, whether through the induction theory or his personal, individual opinion, Hume’s conclusions tend to fail in a range of aspects, but the most intriguing relates to his inadequate proposal and later the revision of a law of nature. He forgets the concept that if ever a more accurate explanation is found, there would be no reason to view miracles as a violation of the laws of nature. Who’s to say miracles need to violate the laws of nature? Can’t unexpected, everyday events, which we live through, account to be miraculous?