Program / Course 16: Historical Defense / Lesson 8.2
What you will learn
- State Hume’s argument against believing reports of miracles and the main replies.
- Explain Troeltsch’s principle of analogy and why it matters for historical method.
- Describe how beliefs about God and nature affect the weighing of the evidence.
- Identify the point at which the resurrection debate becomes a philosophical debate.
The big idea
The same evidence for the resurrection can seem strong to one person and weak to another, because each begins with different beliefs about whether miracles can happen. David Hume argued that the evidence for a miracle will always be outweighed by the uniform experience against it. Critics reply that his argument assumes what it is meant to prove, or that it ignores the possibility that God exists and acts. The question cannot be answered by examining the sources alone. A careful student will state their own background beliefs and see how the conclusion changes if those beliefs change.
Key terms
- Miracle
- In common definitions, an event that goes beyond the ordinary course of nature and is attributed to the action of God. Definitions vary.
- Naturalism
- The view that nature is all that exists, or that every event has a natural cause. It is a philosophical position, not a scientific result.
- Theism
- Belief in a personal God who created the world and can act in it.
- Principle of analogy
- Ernst Troeltsch’s rule that historians should judge past events by their likeness to events known in the present, which in practice excludes miracles.
- Prior probability
- The likelihood of a claim before the specific evidence is considered, based on background knowledge.
- Hume
- David Hume (1711 to 1776), Scottish philosopher whose essay on miracles in his Enquiry concerning Human Understanding (1748) remains the standard starting point for the debate.
Background
In Lesson 1.3 the idea of prior probability was introduced. The resurrection debate is a clear case. A scholar who thinks that a divine act is very unlikely will want overwhelming evidence. A scholar who thinks that God exists and has reason to act will need much less. Neither is irrational. They begin at different places.
This lesson looks at the philosophical question that sits behind the historical one. It is not the purpose of the course to settle it. It is to make the question visible, so that the student can see which parts of the debate are about evidence and which are about worldview, and so can speak honestly about each.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Hume’s argument
Hume defined a miracle as a violation of the laws of nature. He argued that laws of nature rest on firm and unalterable experience, so that the evidence against a miracle is as complete as any evidence can be. The testimony for a miracle can only outweigh this if its falsehood would be more miraculous than the event it reports. He also noted that miracle reports are common in many religions, which cancel each other as evidence, and that they tend to come from ignorant people in barbarous times.
The argument has been influential for over two centuries. Many take it as showing that a miracle can never be reasonably believed on testimony. Hume does not say that miracles are impossible. He says that the evidence will practically never be enough.
Step 2: Replies to Hume
Philosophers have raised several objections. John Earman argued that the argument, in Bayesian terms, fails: even if the prior probability of a miracle is small, a strong enough body of evidence can overcome it, and Hume gives no principled limit. Others, such as C. S. Lewis, noted that the laws of nature describe what happens when nothing interferes, and do not say whether something can interfere. A third objection says that defining uniform experience against a miracle assumes that the miracle did not occur, and so begs the question.
Defenders of Hume reply that his point is about relative probabilities, and that many replies underestimate the strength of regular experience. They add that the problem of competing miracle claims remains. The debate is active, and it has produced no consensus among philosophers.
Step 3: The principle of analogy
Troeltsch argued in 1898 that historical method depends on three principles: criticism (all claims are open to revision), correlation (events are linked in a web of causes) and analogy (the past is like the present). Applied strictly, analogy excludes events with no parallel today, and so excludes miracles. Many historians use a version of this rule as methodological naturalism.
Critics say the rule excludes the miraculous from the start, so that no evidence could count for it. Defenders reply that without such a rule historians would have no way to separate fact from legend. Even some believing historians accept the rule as a working discipline and still hold that miracles may occur.
Step 4: How background beliefs shape the result
A theist who thinks that God raised Jesus sees the evidence as fitting an event in which God acts. An atheist who thinks that there is no God will think that a natural explanation, however strained, must be preferred. An agnostic may see the evidence as a puzzle without a clear solution. A deist or a liberal believer may hold that God works through natural processes and finds the claim of a physical miracle unnecessary.
Each of these positions is held by thoughtful people. None of them follows simply from the historical evidence. For this reason the history of the debate shows scholars of great competence on both sides, and often showing that the same data lead to different conclusions.
Step 5: What a careful student can do
A careful student states their own starting point, for example that they accept or reject the possibility of divine action, and then asks how the conclusion would change under the other assumption. This is a useful exercise in intellectual honesty. It shows whether the argument is robust or whether it depends entirely on the assumption.
The student can also note a middle path. One may hold that the historical evidence is strong enough that someone open to miracles should find the resurrection credible, without claiming that it should compel someone whose worldview excludes it. This is the position of many careful apologists and also of some careful skeptics, who say that the question of God is prior.
- What do I believe about whether God exists and can act in the world, and what is my reason?
- Would I consider the evidence differently if I held the opposite belief?
- Does my definition of a miracle build in the conclusion?
- Do I apply Hume’s reasoning to miracle claims in other religions in the same way?
- Is the principle of analogy a method or a worldview?
- What kind of evidence could change my mind about miracles?
Examples
Two readers, one lesson
Two students study the same sources. The first believes in a God who acts and finds the resurrection a reasonable conclusion. The second, an atheist, finds the evidence puzzling but prefers to say that some unknown natural cause lies behind it. They agree on the facts and disagree on the starting point.
Competing miracle reports
The Roman historian Tacitus reports that the emperor Vespasian was said to have healed a blind man and a lame man in Alexandria in AD 69. Hume used such reports to argue that miracle claims are cheap and contradictory. A reply is that the cases differ in their sources and circumstances, which should be examined one by one.
Lewis on laws
C. S. Lewis compared the laws of nature to the rules of arithmetic. If a person puts six pennies in a drawer, the rules tell him that there will be six, but do not tell him that nobody will steal one. In the same way, he said, the laws of nature describe what happens when nothing intervenes.
Different perspectives
Catholic
Catholic teaching holds that miracles are possible and are signs given by God to confirm revelation. The First Vatican Council taught that miracles and prophecies are signs of divine revelation fitted to human understanding. Catholic philosophers treat Hume’s argument as flawed.
Orthodox
Orthodox Christianity does not see God as separated from nature, and the miraculous is part of the life of the church. The Orthodox approach is less concerned with proving miracles and more with participating in the mystery of the resurrection.
Protestant
Evangelical philosophers such as Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga defend the rational acceptability of miracle claims. Some liberal Protestants, following Bultmann, hold that modern people cannot believe in miracles and that Easter faith is faith in the proclamation, not in a physical event.
Secular philosophers and historians
Many hold with Hume that historians should not accept miracles, because natural explanations are always more probable. Others, such as John Earman, criticize Hume’s argument while also doubting that the evidence for the resurrection suffices.
Jewish and Muslim thinkers
Both traditions affirm that God acts in history and accept miracles in their scriptures. They accept the possibility of the resurrection of the dead but not that Jesus is the Messiah or the Son of God, and so evaluate the specific Christian claim on other grounds.
Why it matters
Many arguments about the resurrection are really arguments about whether miracles can happen, though they appear to be arguments about the sources. Recognizing this saves a great deal of confusion. It lets a student understand why two intelligent people can look at the same evidence and reach opposite conclusions, and it encourages humility on both sides.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: Hume proved that miracles are impossible.
Correction: Hume argued that testimony is rarely enough to establish a miracle. He did not claim that miracles are impossible, and philosophers still dispute his argument.
Misunderstanding: Believing in miracles is simply unscientific.
Correction: Science studies regularities in nature. Whether God acts outside those regularities is a philosophical and theological question that science does not settle.
Misunderstanding: Historians have shown that miracles never happen.
Correction: Historians who use methodological naturalism do not assess miracles. That is a limit of the method, and does not show that miracles do not occur.
Misunderstanding: Anyone who believes the resurrection has just decided to ignore the evidence.
Correction: Many believers have studied the evidence closely. They differ from skeptics largely in their starting assumptions about God and nature.
Knowledge check
What is Hume’s main argument about miracles?
Hume held that the laws of nature rest on uniform experience, so the evidence against a miracle is as strong as evidence can be. Testimony should be accepted only if its falsehood would be more miraculous than the event. He also noted conflicting miracle claims in different religions. He did not say miracles are impossible.
Name two replies to Hume.
Earman argued that Hume’s argument fails in probabilistic terms, because strong evidence can overcome a low prior probability and Hume sets no principled limit. Lewis argued that laws of nature describe what happens when nothing intervenes and do not say whether something can. Another reply holds that Hume’s argument begs the question.
What is the principle of analogy, and why is it debated?
Troeltsch’s principle says that historians judge the past by its likeness to the present, which excludes events without parallel, such as miracles. Defenders say it gives method and discipline. Critics say it rules out miracles in advance, so that no evidence could count in their favor.
Why can scholars reach different conclusions from the same evidence?
They hold different background beliefs about whether God exists and acts, which set the prior probability of a miracle. They also differ in judging the reliability of the sources. Because these are not decided by the evidence alone, thoughtful people can differ while sharing the same facts.
Think it through
- How would you describe your own starting point on miracles? Has it changed over time?
- Is it fair to ask for stronger evidence for unusual claims? How much stronger?
- Does the existence of many miracle claims in other religions weaken any one claim? How?
- What would it take for a skeptic and a believer to have a fruitful conversation about the resurrection?
Independent assignment
Two starting points
In your own notebook, write 400 to 600 words. State your own view on whether miracles can occur and give your reasons. Then explain how a person with the opposite view would read the evidence for the resurrection, and where you think the two of you would differ. Do not send this to anyone.
Further study
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Hume on Religion Read the section on miracles and the replies.
- C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity Read for an accessible presentation of the Christian worldview and its questions.
- Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief Read for the argument that belief in God can be rational without argument.
- Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God Read for an argument based on probability for the existence of God.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Religion and Science Read for the relation between scientific method and religious claims.
- John 20:29 Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
- Luke 16:31 If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.