David Hume on Miracles
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be even more miraculous than the claim which the testimony endeavors to establish as a fact."
Carl Sagan said "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence." This is Carl Sagan's rendition of David Hume's saying that a wise man proportions his beliefs to his evidence.
Christianity is a body of beliefs that either stands or falls on the basis of its historical claims. Th core Christian belief that Jesus is the son of God is supported by offering two "historical" evidences: (1) Jesus was born of a virgin; (2) Jesus came back to life after death. Nothing in the evidence is even remotely grounded in everyday human experiences. That is why they are called miracles.
What kind of extraordinary evidence would a wise man seek to believe a miracle such as a dead man coming back to life? David Hume says that only acceptable evidence is that whose falsity would be even more miraculous than the claim that the evidence is offered to support. Given the fallibility of human understanding and judgment, that is a wise requirement. Unfortunately,claims (1) and (2) above are completely in opposition to common human collective experience.
Events which are not supported by any human experiences are called miracles. Not all miracles are equally incredible. Some miracles are even more out of the ordinary than others. Let us examine the news of a UFO flying about the sky of a small town according to the witness offered by a few dozen people who claim to have seen the UFO in broad day light with their naked 20/20 vision! Would you believe it? How about the witnessing of the miracle of a man flying effortlessly on a whim? This sounds even more incredible when contrasted with our time tested collective human experience. What could be the most incredible of all miracles? The most extraordinary miracle of all is that a human is either God or the son of God. A rational person cannot begin to explain the evidence he or she would like to see to be convinced that someone is the son of God. What should the response of a thinking person be to evidences offered for such claims? What level of credulity is to be reasonably expected for claims of evidence for such extraordinary miracles? Let us remember, we are talking about son of God!! The same God who supposedly created the Universe, a Universe with more than a billion trillion stars each of which dwarfs earth in size! The earth is like a spec of dust in the expanse of the Universe. An individual is a spec of dust on this third rock from the Sun. A second hand written record claims that a few people witnessed events more than 2000 years ago which indirectly support the view that Jesus came back to life after being dead. Church offers this view as the basis for the miracle of Jesus being the son of God. Believable?
History-centrism of Abrahamic religions brings God into Human history and documents proof of God as being part of or guidance of that history through acts of miracles. Thus, Moses gets a personal word from God via the miracle of Ten Commandments engraved on stone tablets. Jesus gets his intimacy with God through his miraculous birth to a Virgin, through his resurrection after crucifixion and death, and other sundry miracles he performs while alive. Muhammad gets the personal knowledge of the word of God through his miraculous access to angel Gabriel who delivers to Muhammad the word of God.
The essential element in all these is the same. God performs miracles for or via a select few individuals. A few claim to be witnesses and the rest of us are consumers of this "he-said, she-said" type circumstantial evidence.
What is the problem with offering historical evidence for miracles?
This very idea is fraught with an inextricable dilemma. There are always two choices: (1) A great miracle has occurred; or (2) you were under a grave misapprehension.
Which is it?
The first requires that laws of nature be temporarily suspended so that the miracle can happen. The second requires that the prophet simply made a mistake in observation.
Which is more likely? (1) Laws of nature have been suspended in the special prophet's favor, in a way that he approves?; or (2) that the prophet made a mistake (or lied)?
Now add an extra level of distance by saying that the miracle was witnessed by a chosen person and you get to hear it from a long line of those who heard from others. Miracle? Mistake? Lie?
Add on top of that a hearsay evidence that has been managed and transmitted in a controlled way by parties with vested interests, now the miracle is beginning to look like a tall tale, a potent make-believe.
How many watched David Copperfield make a train disappear before a large audience? Is he a prophet of our times specially chosen by God to reveal His miracles? Or was it a good magic trick that fooled the entire audience? Which is more likely? Take that back to over a millennium ago. Do you think it would be easier to fool people of that time?
Here is the slippery slope for the gullible. Suppose Jesus was born of a Virgin. Let us even grant that he came back to life after death. How does that establish that he is the son of God? Or that his moral teachings are true?
A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them? 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. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation....
The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish....' When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.
In the foregoing reasoning we have supposed, that the testimony, upon which a miracle is founded, may possibly amount to an entire proof, and that the falsehood of that testimony would be a real prodigy: But it is easy to shew, that we have been a great deal too liberal in our concession, and that there never was a miraculous event established on so full an evidence.
From David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, L. A. Selby Bigge, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902), pp. 114-16.