Debunking David Hume’s Argument Against Miracles

In this video, I'll go over issues with David Hume's argument Against Miracles in "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding." By "debunking,"
I mean pointing out issues in its current fomulation. As a result, it can be reformulated in a stronger way, but it needs to take into account developments in thought since then. My issues with Hume's argument are as follows:
1. Hume's argument begs the question
2. Hume's argument is inconsistent with Hume's own skepticism
3. Hume's argument "proves too much"
4. Hume was ignorant of modern science (due to his place in history), which severly undermine his argument
5. Hume was ignorant of modern probability theory (including Bayesian statistics and Bayesian epsitemology), developed in response *to* his argument against miracles

Despite these problems, I have a great respect for Hume and do think his argument is worth considering and discussing. However, as atheist Peter Millican argues, it needs to be reformulated. A thank you to @TestifyApologetics for sugggesting Devett and Habermas's book from one of his YouTube videos (It is avaliable on Audible)

[1] Klibansky and Mossner - New Letters p234
[2] Devett and Habermas - In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God's Action in History
[3] Hume - An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
[4] Earman - Hume’s Abject Failure
[5] Millican - Earman on Hume on Mircales
[6] Lewis - On Miracles
[7] Cramer - Miracles and David Hume
[8] Flew - There Is A God
#philosophy #christianity #miracle #miracles

[intelligentdesign]

Many modern philosophers have presented counterarguments to many of Hume's objections. Eg:

"If Hume’s criteria for accepting testimony as true were employed out-side of miracle-claims, we would probably have to dismiss the vast majority of what we believe we presently know about the past. Much of what we
hold about the past was reported by a lone source and is rarely “beyond all
suspicion.” While data meeting Hume’s criteria are certainly desirable,
historians do not hesitate to make historical judgments when they are unmet, since they have a number of tools with which they work, namely criteria for authenticity and arguments to the best explanation.
Hume’s argument concerning the intelligence and integrity of witnesses
to miracles makes three claims: Testimonies of miracles abound among
the ignorant and uneducated; they do not occur in modern times; and
deceitful witnesses abound. On these claims Hume’s argument again faces
numerous challenges. It is true that citizens in third-world countries may
be more gullible than the educated in modern cultures and may mistake
for supernatural a spectacular event known by scientists to have a natural
cause, such as an eclipse or the northern lights. It is likewise true that there
are numerous miracle-claims from the past and that deceitful witnesses
abound. However, the converse is also true: miracles are both claimed and
believed by highly educated persons in modern society, and truthful witnesses abound. Certainly caution is in order. We must consider miracleclaims on a case-by-case basis. If the evidence for a miracle is credible and
no plausible natural explanations exist, to reject it on the basis that other
miracle-claims abound among the ignorant and uneducated is to be guilty
of arguing ad hominem. Thus, historians need not bow to Hume’s criteria
for acceptable testimony."
(Michael Licona "The Resurrection Of Jesus")

"Likewise, Hume‟s argument that “miracle is only among ignorant
and uncivilized people” is not unquestionable. This is so because in the
most civilized and most learned societies today, like those of America and
Europe, there are reports of claims of miraculous cures performed by
preachers, evangelists and prophets. These miraculous cures are reported
to occur during public prayer, sermons or fellowship gathering
in these
“celebrated part of the world.” Even the miraculous resurrection of Jesus
Christ was testified to by a reputable educated secular historian Josephus,
when he writes that “When Pilate ...condemned him to be crucified, those
who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On
the third day he appeared ... restored to life.” it is noteworthy that
miracles are rare events, the fact that one has not experience one is not
enough evident to deny its possibility or existence. Further, it appears that
Paul meets the requirements of Hume as a witness to a miracle. Paul was
honest (he did not charge for people to hear his message, and he
eventually died for its truth [1 Cor. 9:18; 2 Tim 4:6]), educated (had the
equivalent of two doctoral degrees [Acts 22:3; Phil 3:5]), and had
something to lose (lost his position in Judaism and eventually his life for
the truth [Phil 3:4–7; 2 Tim 4:6]). If Paul does not meet Hume‟s
requirements for witness to miracle, then it appears that no witness has
ever met them. "
(AN ASSESSMENT OF DAVID HUME’S IMPOSSIBILITY OF
MIRACLE
Olubanjo-Olufowobi, Olufunso)

"It would appear that there is a natural tendency in humans for
passion for surprise and wonder but it does not follow that people
necessarily believe the surprises and wonders. For man also have the
natural tendency to be skeptical. Hume‟s assertion of human‟s love for the
miraculous, then, must be balanced by human tendency to skepticism.
Hume‟s argument against the possibility of miracle based on “the barbaric
and ignorant nations” is bias also and the bias is unsubstantiated. True, people in antiquated times did not know the scientific advances that
marked Hume‟s age. However, it would not be proper for modern readers
to dismiss Hume‟s writings because he lived in an antiquated age among
“barbarous” peoples. What Hume seems to miss is that while those before
him were not privileged to his knowledge, they certainly knew that a
person who could not see was blind (John 9). They knew that the sea does
not naturally split at the motion of a hand (Exodus 14:21). Brown explains
Hume‟s problem well when he asserts that, “it is absurd to demand of a
witness that he should share the same world view as oneself or have the
same level of education and culture.” The witness to miracles in the Bible
may not have had Hume‟s education, but that did not prevent them from
recognizing the regularity of natural law and the truly miraculous."
(AN ASSESSMENT OF DAVID HUME’S IMPOSSIBILITY OF
MIRACLE
Olubanjo-Olufowobi, Olufunso
)

"One wonders here at Hume's scale of evidence. Suppose two hundred witnesses claiming to have
observed some event E, an event which, if it occurred, would be a non-repeatable counter-instance to a
law of nature. Suppose these to be witnesses able and anxious to show that E did not occur if there
were grounds for doing so. Would not their combined evidence give us good reason to believe that E
occurred? Hume's answer which we can see from his discussion of two apparently equally well
authenticated miracles is-No. But then, one is inclined to say, is not Hume just being bigoted, refusing to
face facts? It would be virtually impossible to draw up a table showing how many witnesses and of what
kind we need to establish the occurrence of an event which, if it occurred, would be a non repeatable
counter-instance to a law of nature. Each purported instance has to be considered on its merits. But
certainly one feels that Hume's standards of evidence are too high. What, one wonders, would Hume
himself say if he saw such an event?
"
(Richard Swinburne. For the Possibility of Miracles
)