David Hume's argument on miracles is flawed both in what he defines as a miracle and his arguments about the assessment on the evidence of miracles. There are many weaknesses in his theory which will be outlined and one of his strengths will be refuted. Hume defines a miracle as a break in the laws of nature as in his book he states "a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature". He also tells us it is not rational to believe in miracles as it is more logical to believe that the natural laws have remained in place and the witness is either mistaken or purposely deceiving you. Hume looks at the reliability of the witnesses and tells us that a normal person would expect a witness to be intelligent and unbiased if we were take their claims seriously.
…show more content…
Richard Swinburne and John Mackie agree that a miracle should be defined as a contradiction of natural laws. Swinburne describes a miracle as 'a violation of a law of nature by a god and Mackie describes this as a 'violation of a law of nature' with 'divine or supernatural intervention'. These definitions seem to cover what a miracle is, something that would not usually happen but has happened due to an external influence. They also offer an explanation for biblical example as God – the external influence - has intervened to make miracles happen. However, this description asks too much for something to be accounted as a miracle. A miracle should be something that is a highly improbable event that occurs instead of something that is impossible without intervention. R.F. Holland uses an example where a child avoids being hit by a train and certain death because of extremely unlikely events – the driver fell ill whilst driving the train - which caused the train driver to hit the brakes. This should constitute as a miracle as it was so unlikely that the child would survive but he did. A biblical example that is described as a miracle is Moses parting the Red Sea. This event where Moses and the people needed to cross the sea and the sea parted would need a highly improbable series of events – a strong whirlwind in that place at that time to part the sea - to happen. Therefore, miracles should be described as a highly improbable event occurring. (Davies, 1993, pp.
Richard Swinburne and John Mackie agree that a miracle should be defined as a contradiction of natural laws. Swinburne describes a miracle as 'a violation of a law of nature by a god and Mackie describes this as a 'violation of a law of nature' with 'divine or supernatural intervention'. These definitions seem to cover what a miracle is, something that would not usually happen but has happened due to an external influence. They also offer an explanation for biblical example as God – the external influence - has intervened to make miracles happen. However, this description asks too much for something to be accounted as a miracle. A miracle should be something that is a highly improbable event that occurs instead of something that is impossible without intervention. R.F. Holland uses an example where a child avoids being hit by a train and certain death because of extremely unlikely events – the driver fell ill whilst driving the train - which caused the train driver to hit the brakes. This should constitute as a miracle as it was so unlikely that the child would survive but he did. A biblical example that is described as a miracle is Moses parting the Red Sea. This event where Moses and the people needed to cross the sea and the sea parted would need a highly improbable series of events – a strong whirlwind in that place at that time to part the sea - to happen. Therefore, miracles should be described as a highly improbable event occurring. (Davies, 1993, pp.