Reply to Hume on Miracles

We need to be Skeptical about Dogmatic “Skepticism”

When I first read Hume’s compelling arguments against the reality of causal connections, then turned a few pages to his arguments on miracles, I assumed that he would argue that there was no reason to deny the existence of miracles. After all, if causal connections are unreal, or at least inexplicable, doesn’t that leave open the possibility that they could occasionally come unhinged? Hume, however, argues exactly the opposite, putting forth a maxim that makes it essentially impossible to ever consider the existence of any given miracle. Hume’s argument can be abstracted to these basic steps:

1) “All effects follow not with like certainty from their supposed causes” (sect.87). Some connections between causes and effects are nearly certain, others are only probable.

2) The connection between human experience and testimony is only probable. Sometimes people tell the truth, and sometimes they don’t.

3) Consequently, when human testimony reports things that are marvelous, i.e. very different from anything we have ever experienced, the reasonable strategy is to doubt their word.

4) Furthermore, when testimony reports what is miraculous, it goes against all of human experience, because a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature.

From this Hume concludes that “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind that it’s…