Miracles continued . . .

Matt: Okay Hume. Sorry for the wait. You now have the floor. Why can't we identify miracles?

Hume: Thank you Matt. Let me start off by asking a question. If you're wise, you're going to base your beliefs on the evidence, right?

Matt: Sounds good.

Hume: If I have evidence that makes my conclusion almost certain, we have a proof! But if we have evidence that makes my conclusion likely, we're not talking about certainty anymore.

Matt: What's being talked about?

Hume: Probability. If I'm talking about probability, I need to have my belief based on the strength of the probability that my conclusion is true.

Matt: Give me an example.

Hume: Okay. Do you think it's safe to believe that Caesar probably crossed the Rubicon?

Matt: History records it. Scholars are agreed about its authenticity. So, I guess it's safe to say that it probably happened.

Hume: And I would say you're wise. You proportioned your belief to the strength of the probability involved.

Matt: Thanks.

Hume: But here's where I hit a snag. I think that even if you have a proof - let alone probability - we still wouldn't be wise to believe in miracles.

Matt: A proof? Are you sure? Why not?

Hume: Because we have equal proof that the laws of nature don't change, like what Spinoza and Voltaire and Newton were saying. With this proof, we have reason to think that miracles - even though they were reported - didn't happen.

Matt: But what if I have human testimony of a miracle?

Hume: It doesn't matter! The testimony is only as good as what science can allow it to be. We observe and experience stuff all the time! Mankind, since the beginning of time, has observed and experienced things. I mean, what if I told you I saw flying pigs yesterday? Would you believe me?

Matt: No, that's absurd.

Hume: And why is that?

Matt: Because pigs can't fly. No pigs have wings. Pigs flying with no wings is impossible. And we know from the laws of nature that things like that can't happen. So, I'd think you're deluded or you're lying, right?

Hume: And that's exactly my point. The disciples said they saw these miracles. But we have a solid proof that the laws of nature don't change! And we can inspect the validity of this proof anytime we want. On balance, if you're wise, you'll believe what science tells you about the laws of nature over what a fisherman says he saw thousands of years ago, no?

Matt: I see why you'd think that. Is that the end of your argument?

Hume: Oh no. Not yet.

Matt. Okay, go on.

Hume: The first point had to do with what would happen if we did have the full proof for miracles. Remember, it wouldn't work, since the full proof for the laws of nature will always outweigh the proof that comes from measly human testimony.

Matt: So, what's the second point?

Hume: That we don't have a full proof for miracles.

Matt: Well, why not? What's your argument?

Hume: Consider human testimony. Look at all the reports of miracles. Were they written by educated people? By honest men or women? Were they upper class? Usually, they're all lower class or poverty-level.

Matt: That sounds sort of snobby, but I'll let you finish.

Hume: On top of this, people want to believe in miracles and magic. Myths and fairy tales abound. This means we desire these things.

Matt: Anything else?

Hume: Well, all religions have miracles! They all cancel themselves out! They can't all be true. And since they are supposed to give support to contradictory doctrines, you get rid of the miracles in order to get rid of the contradictions.

Matt: I understand.

Hume: And that's pretty much it. The only miracle here is the miracle that anyone would believe in miracles based on human testimony. It goes against custom! It goes against experience! It goes against rationality! It's all blind faith!

Matt: No need to shout Hume. But thank you for your time. I have some other people I need to talk to. There are some people who have overheard this conversation and I think they're interested in the subject. But first, I want to talk to Jean Le Clerc, Samuel Clarke, Jacob Vernet, and Claude Fancois Houtteville. They heard me talking to Spinoza a couple days ago, and they seem like they want to set him straight. After that, we meet some guys who have problems with you, Hume.

Hume: I'd be delighted to hear what they have to say.

Spinoza: Yea. Who are those guys you named? What don't they like about the laws of nature, anyway?

Matt: Just hear them out, and then tell me what you think.

Hume and Spinoza: We will.