CHAPTER X - On Hume's Argument against Miracles

Summary

Few arguments have excited greater attention, and produced more attempts at refutation, than the celebrated one of David Hume, respecting miracles; and it might be added, that more sophistry has been advanced against it, than its author employed in the whole of his writings.

It must be admitted that in the argument, as originally developed by its author, there exists some confusion between personal experience and that which is derived from testimony; and that there are several other points open to criticism and objection; but the main argument, divested of its less important adjuncts, never has, and never will be refuted. Dr. Johnson seems to have been of this opinion, as the following extract from his life by Boswell proves:—

“ Talking of Dr, Johnson's unwillingness to believe extraordinary things, I ventured to say—

“‘Sir, you come near to Hume's argument against mira‘cles—That it is more probable witnesses should lie, or be ‘mistaken, than that they should happen.’

“ Johnson.—‘Why, Sir, Hume, taking the proposition ‘simply, is right. But the Christian revelation is not proved ‘by miracles alone, but as connected with prophecies, and ‘with the doctrines in confirmation of which miracles were ‘wrought.’”

Hume contends that 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.