“On Miracles” by David Humes
From the article, Humes mainly argues “That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle”. Humes first showed we usually rely on experiences as reasons to explain matters of facts. He then goes further to explain that because people are just so accustomed to a certain event happening at particular periods of time, if something remarkably rare were to occur, that event might be considered a miracle. Experiences, are therefore, regarded as proof or probability not due to circumstance but rather on the frequency and integrity of a personal account about an event. However, Humes argues that experiences are always susceptible to changes and uncertainty. Thus, our definition and perception of miracles’ existence, based on our personal expectations in such a possibility, depends on the strength of evidence. Humes also argues because it is human nature to want to sway towards the side of a more conventional and rational explanation of the occurrence of ‘miracles’, miracles are simply reliant on the integrity of a person’s account on an event or that of a group of people that have experienced similar relations to a particular event, and, that all this had to be just a collation of facts that are invariable and common amongst the people involved.
I am in agreement with Hume’s main argument. In my belief, a miracle is that of an event that seems unfathomable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God. However, others may not define miracles as that mentioned. Already, this supports Humes’ point that “in our reasonings concerning matter of facts, there are all imaginable degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the lowest species of moral evidence”, where such assurances are the results of past experiences, first-hand accounts or even one’s strength of belief in his faith, which varies among individuals. Thus, depending on the degree of certainty we have in the event occurring again or...