Chapter 8: Given Shepherd’s
Objections, Do Hume’s Views On Miracles Need Adjusting To Be Plausible Today?
Further to the last chapter, I argue that Hume’s definition of a miracle
is not only problematic both within the context of scripture as well as within
Hume and Shepherd’s era, but it also may struggle to give an adequate
explanation of present day situations which are considered miraculous and hard
to explain.
One story which grabbed the headlines late October 2016 was that of
three year old Dylan Askin who was suffering from a rare form of lung cancer
and was on a life support machine and had complications from his condition[i],[ii].
After being baptised, he made a “miraculous recovery” and defied death despite
the decision to switch off his life support machine[iii].
Is this a miracle or just showing a limitation to our medical knowledge? I
suggest Dylan’s story could show the potentially immense value of Shepherd’s
argument that we can learn from exceptions which surprise us and that examining
cases which seem farfetched and miraculous can lead to important discoveries
and a deeper understanding. Events such as this show that previously unobserved
or rarely seen events could mean that, just because something doesn’t fulfil
Hume’s (EHU 10) empirical emphasis on uniform experience, it doesn’t
necessarily follow that the event should not be believed or thoroughly
examined. A lack of repeated observation need not be indicative of the event
being miraculous so Hume (EHU 10) may be overlooking obscure natural laws
alongside his rejection of miracles. So, much as Hume’s (EHU 10) arguments
about miracles are applicable to this case, Hume may struggle to demonstrate
how events such as these give support to his claims about marvellous and
miraculous events.
However, I suggest there is an aspect to Hume’s account of miracles
which is applicable to this case and has a role to play in the examining of
reported miracles in order to preserve plausibility of and belief in a
particular faith. A good example of this is the controversy surrounding the
miracles of Mother Teresa of Calcutta, a Roman Catholic Albanian nun. One of
the miracles ascribed to her which led to her being declared a saint on the
fourth of September 2016 was that of the testimony of Monika Besra, an
illiterate tribal woman, whose tumour vanished after prayers were offered to
Mother Teresa for her recovery[iv].
In part two of his essay ‘Of Miracles’ (EHU 10), Hume raises four important
worries about the source of the testimony of many miracles. First, (EHU 10:92;
SBN 116-17) he gives what I shall call his argument from history and in his
next section, he provides what I shall term his argument from the principle of
human nature (EHU 10:93; SBN 117-19). Then (EHU 10:94; SBN 119-21) he outlines
what I shall name his argument from society and finally (EHU 10:95; SBN 121f)
he outlines what I shall call his argument from cultural and religious
diversity.
So, how would Hume (EHU 10) view the testimony of Besra? One reservation
he may have, given his argument from the principle of human nature, is that she
is an uneducated woman who lives in poverty in a very remote, rural area where
most inhabitants pray, as Hume (EHU 10) might see it, superstitiously and
idolatrously to ‘Morol’ who they believe can protect them from evil[v].
This is because, Hume notes that “There is no kind of report which rises so
easily, and spreads so quickly, especially in country places and provincial
towns” (EHU 10.93; SBN 118). Such a “neighbourhood” is prone to creating and
running with stories which entertain people and even gain popularity throughout
other populations who hear these stories (EHU 10.93; SBN 119). Besra also may
fall into Hume’s description in his argument from society where he comments
that he finds reports of miracles less convincing because they so often
originate from “ignorant and barbarous nations” (EHU 10.94; SBN 119). This is
of concern to Hume because he noticed that testimony detailed in history of
events which took place in these circumstances have been subsequently disproved
when knowledge has increased (EHU 10.94; SBN 119). Such factors are well
founded concerns and cannot be dismissed as possibly just atheistic scepticism
on Hume’s part. This is because, interestingly, by the 17th century,
as a result of a huge number of saints being declared, the rules were changed
so it became up to the Pope to ensure that sainthood was conferred as a result
of good evidence and testimony rather than ad hoc nominations by small
communities of people who could be under the influence of passions such as
religious zealotry[vi]. So, the Vatican set up a rigorous procedure
to follow before confirming a miracle[vii].
So Hume’s (EHU 10) concern about false religion creating unbelievable miracle
testimony had been a topical issue in the early modern period. Nevertheless,
the concern has persisted. For instance, there were recent questions raised
when numerous saints (473 saints and 1,310 blesseds beginning from 1978) were
declared within a very short space of time by Pope John Paul II[viii].
How would Shepherd view the testimony of Besra? Shepherd[ix]
may have been more concerned with her main requirement for true testimony of
miracles that there isn’t some personal gain for the testifier which gives them
a personal interest in reporting the miracle in the hope that doing so will be
to their benefit or advantage. Furthermore, Shepherd[x]
values the credibility of testimony which is given despite the testifier’s
suffering, as was the case with the Apostles in the Gospels. In Besra’s case,
she believed she stood to gain from claiming that a miracle had taken place[xi].
Furthermore, personal gain may have been a motivation for her given that she
became a celebrity and publically stated that the nuns “made a lot of promises
to me and assured me of financial help…”[xii].
Indeed, I suggest that both Hume (EHU 10) and Shepherd[xiii]
may be concerned that many, including doctors, have questioned this miracle
because Besra had been medically treated for her ill health and responded well
to the treatment given[xiv].
In part 2, I have attempted to show how Hume’s (EHU 10) argument against miracles contains some problematic flaws which impact on the plausibility of his argument and that his argument could be somewhat adjusted to leave Hume less open to objections such as the ones Shepherd raises[xv]. I have suggested that Hume’s (EHU 10) definition of miracles needs adjusting to make it broader in scope and more flexible so it can account for a wider range of possibilities. Also, I think Hume’s emphasis on empiricism weakens his argument still further because, as Shepherd points out[xvi], it often leads to describing human habit, good or bad, rather than establishing logical reasoning which encourages philosophical analysis in the pursuit of knowledge. Furthermore, Hume’s (EHU 10) concept of the passion of wonder needs to be explained and developed more fully to bring out his reservations about its impact on testimony. It is not self-evident that wonder in itself is always detrimental to truth and knowledge, as Shepherd points out[xvii]. The passion of wonder is also relevant to scriptural writings so it is a pivotal concept. Perhaps wonder is not the best word for what Hume (EHU 10) is trying to capture as a description of a phenomenon in society and in human nature. I think Hume’s approach comes across as quite dismissive of miracles which may disengage the reader. However, Hume’s desire to protect religion from superstition and false religion and practices is a strong point in his favour.
I maintain that Shepherd[xviii]
has the logically stronger argument in the sense that she is more rigorous and
logic-focused in her philosophical arguments and remains theologically more
accurate. Although she retains objectivity throughout, I think she may be too
sweeping towards the end of her essay[xix],
especially in relation to her suffering criteria. However, she may have been
assuming that her final thoughts followed tightly from her previous arguments
in the essay so she didn’t think she was too broad brush in her approach here.
Hence, given the preciseness of her criticisms, I suggest that, if Hume had
attempted to write a response to Shepherd to defend his views against her
criticisms, he may have encountered difficulties in retaining his claims
without making some alterations (EHU 10).
[i] Anon., ‘Toddler’s Miraculous Recovery
after Guilt-Ridden Mum Makes Heartbreaking Decision to Turn off Life Support’, Mirror
Online, 29 October 2016,
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/toddlers-miraculous-recovery-after-guilt-ridden-mum-makes-heartbreaking-decision-to-turn-off-life-support/ar-AAjxMnm?li=AA59G2&ocid=spartandhp.
[ii] Telegraph Reporters, ‘Toddler Battling
Lung Cancer “Rose from the Dead” as Doctors Prepared to Switch off His Life
Support’, Telegraph Newspaper Online, 24 October 2016,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/24/toddler-battling-lung-cancer-rose-from-the-dead-as-doctors-prepa/.
[iii] Anon., ‘Toddler’s Miraculous Recovery
after Guilt-Ridden Mum Makes Heartbreaking Decision to Turn off Life Support’.
[iv] Brown, ‘Did Mother Teresa Really Perform
Miracles’, Telegraph Newspaper Online, 2016, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/did-mother-teresa-really-perform-miracles/.
[v] Brown.
[vi] Brown.
[vii] Brown.
[viii]
Brown.
[ix] Mary Shepherd, ‘“Essay VIII: That Human
Testimony Is Of Sufficient Force To Establish the Credibility Of Miracles.”’,
in Essays on the Perception of an External Universe and Other Subjects
Connected with the Doctrine of Causation (Piccadilly, London, United
Kingdom: John hatchard and Son., 1827), 325–45,
https://archive.org/stream/essaysonpercepti00shep/#page/n7/mode/2up.
[x] Shepherd.
[xi] Foster, ‘Mother Teresa Miracle Patient
Accuses Nuns’, Telegraph Newspaper Online, 2007,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1562284/Mother-Teresa-miracle-patient-accuses-nuns.html.
[xii] Foster.
[xiii]
Shepherd, ‘“Of Miracles”’.
[xiv] Foster, ‘Mother Teresa Miracle Patient
Accuses Nuns’.
[xv] Shepherd, ‘“Of Miracles”’.
[xvi] Shepherd.
[xvii]
Shepherd.
[xviii]
Shepherd.
[xix] Shepherd.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.