ATHEISM, DAVID HUME, AND THE DENIAL OF MIRACLES
DR. PETERSON TOOK the microphone. “Thank you, Mr. Washington. Now, Dr. Franck Gouffran, you have fifteen minutes to give a rebuttal to Jamal Washington’s original defense of the resurrection.”
Gouffran jumped right in. “Jamal, perhaps the literature you cited does provide very early attestation that people were claiming to have seen a risen Christ. I’ll give you that argument and consent, but it won’t convince me as an educated man that the resurrection actually did happen. What I would like to propose is that, regardless of the miraculous claims of Christ and His followers, along with the evidence you provided, it is unreasonable—irrational, actually—to believe that God exists, that Jesus is God, and that He was raised from the dead.
“Now, I would like to go to the argument of noted philosopher David Hume. This argument has not been adequately rebutted by any Christian that I know of. I’ll read from David Hume and then share a few comments:
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…. Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happened 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 the appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered credible, but by an opposite proof, which is superior.37
“Faculty, students, and guests, what Hume has brilliantly revealed is that the one who believes in God must believe in a natural order since without such an order, there cannot be any way of recognizing exceptions to the order. Then, Hume clearly reminds the Christian that the probability for the Christian’s alleged violations of natural laws must always be much less than the probability that the exception has occurred.38
“Dr. Peterson and Mr. Washington, let me summarize Hume’s argument for the audience:
A miracle is by definition a rare occurrence.
Natural law is by definition a description of regular occurrence.
The evidence for the regular is always greater than that for the rare.
Wise individuals always base belief on the greater evidence.
Therefore, wise individuals should never believe in miracles.39
“Perhaps those of you who are Christians would respond, ‘Even if Hume’s philosophical argument against miracles is good, we have faith that Jesus is God!’ If a Christian chooses to believe in virgin births, talking snakes, or a resurrection of Jesus, it seems that the only basis for such a belief is ‘faith.’ But let me make it perfectly clear. Blind faith is not knowledge. Though one might claim to be truthful in exercising blind faith, it is not intellectually honest.
“The religious philosopher William James once gave a lecture entitled, ‘The will to Believe.’ He seems to have influenced many churchgoing Christians, especially here in the south where there appears to be a mega-church on every corner. James thought it was acceptable for Christians to violate the principle of evidence as long as their faith was at work. In other words, a Christian may not have knowledge or evidence of truth, but so long as he has faith in God, and his family seems happy, his marriage is better, and his relationships seem ‘authentic,’ having faith is just fine.
“I would argue that the blind faith of William James is illogical, and that there is no need for this blind faith. If Christians wish to be authentic, they must believe that which is rational, trust their senses and science, and deny these acts called miracles. Thank you very much.”