1
What is a Miracle?
A miracle, according to David Hume, is an occurrence that takes place unnaturally. He
suggests that if something happens commonly in nature, it is not considered miraculous. For
example, the unexpected death of a person who appeared to be in good health is not a miracle
because it is a common event. But since it has never been seen before, it would be regarded as a
miracle if a deceased person were to resurrect. According to Hume, in order for an occurrence to
be considered miraculous, there has to be a constant experience that prevents it from happening;
otherwise, it wouldn't be considered a miracle.1
The Christian faith and the Bible define a miracle as an extraordinary event defying
natural explanations and attributed to divine intervention. Miracles are considered acts of God's
power and authority, which demonstrate His presence, sovereignty, and concern for humanity.
The events often serve to confirm God's message, validate the authority of His messengers, or
demonstrate His power and presence. The Apostle John wrote, “Therefore many of the Jews who
had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him’ (John 11:45 NIV). In the
Bible, miracles include supernatural healings, control over nature, resurrection from the dead,
and other supernatural interventions. Christian faith holds that they are manifestations of God's
love, mercy, and purpose in the world, as well as evidence of his active involvement in human
affairs.
Objection Challenging to Miracles
Hume's argument against the credibility of miraculous testimony is one of the objections
to miracles I found most challenging in Hume and Flew. Hume argues that the credibility of
evidence, based on witnesses and human testimony, relies on past experiences. Consequently, it
1 R. Douglas Geivett and Gary R. Habermas, In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God’s
Action in History, 1st ed. (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1997), 64-65.
2
fluctuates with these experiences, being deemed either as proof or probability depending on the
consistency or variability observed in the correlation between specific reports and objects.2 Thus,
he claims that any testimony claiming a violation of natural laws is less reliable than testimony
supporting the regularity of natural events since the laws of nature are uniform and well-
established.
Response to Objection
A response to Hume's arguments against miraculous testimony could be based on several
key points outlined in Chapters 3-6 of Geivett & Habermas' "In Defense of Miracles." The
authors present various philosophical and theological perspectives that challenge Hume's
empiricist approach to evaluating miracle claims. In particular, they contend that Hume's criteria
for assessing eyewitness testimony are too vague when it comes to assessing their credibility.
Geivett & Habermas also discuss the importance of context in evaluating miraculous
events and the nature of historical inquiry. They emphasize the importance of considering factors
such as the reliability of witnesses, the cultural and historical context, and corroborating
evidence. By providing a more nuanced framework for evaluating miraculous testimony, this
comprehensive approach addresses Hume's skepticism.
Additionally, Geivett & Habermas examine how individuals' perception of miraculous
events is influenced by their personal experience and religious convictions. Despite personal
biases and subjective interpretations, they suggest that miracle claims should not be
automatically dismissed as invalid. Rather, they advocate a balanced approach that considers
both empirical evidence and individual experiences.
A more nuanced framework for evaluating miraculous claims is provided by Geivett &
Habermas, challenging Hume's empiricist assumptions and offering a robust defense of
2 Ibid, 31.
