




































                                     

 

         Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 1, January 2024 

ISSN: 2786-9792 

193 
 

THE HUMEAN VIEW ON MIRACLE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR RELIGIOUS 

BELIEFS. 

Hyginus Chibuike EZEBUILO 

Department of Philosophy 

Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka. 

 

And 

 

Asso. Prof Chinyere T. OJIAKOR 

Madonna University Okija 

 

Abstract 

There is no doubt that History plays a crucial role in human existence. It does take the human 

person back to previous events that occurred even in preceding generations, present events and 

as well foreshadows the future. All these work according to the natural law. Therefore, over the 

years, the human person consciously or unconsciously produce their social relations, social 

configuration or organizations and their forms of collective structuring. Though they produce 

this, the result is not immediate, but comes through long and complex collective experiences 

which they have shared together. The factors responsible for this include religion, education, 

science and technology, politics, culture, economy to mention but a few. Reflectively, the 

concept of miracle which strictly belongs to the religious worldview has been bastardized by 

both theistic and atheistic philosophers as a result of its epistemic challenges. With regard to 

this, Hume contended that the smallest and subjective evidences which backup miracles can never 

outweigh the widespread, objective evidences supporting the contention that they never took place as 

reported. This has made the objective evidences needed to prove such occurrences significant. Hence, 

the logical background created by Hume against the existence of miracle affected not only sense 

perception but also posed a serious constraint to all religious beliefs. However, for the speculative 

philosophers, especially those who hinge their system on Absolutism, miracle poses no problem but for 

the logician and empiricist does because there is no rational proof for its existence. The analytic method 

of research was adopted for this discourse.   

Keywords: Miracle, Implication, Religious, Beliefs 

 

INTRODUCTION   

During the medieval period, the medieval researchers, while trying to know the urstuff of the 

universe, conceived nature as divinely created and directed by the divine master and saw 

everything happening according to the instructions which nature has received from the ultimate 

cause. This perception was supported by the already conceived postulations of some classical 

researchers that all things are moved by an unmoved mover, and this necessary being was 

assumed to be God. However, with Copernicus’ verdict that the sun is the centre of the universe, 



 
 

194 
 

as against the church’s teaching which was made firm with Galileo Galilee’s blood, man 

discovered that there are truths which could be grasped by reason alone and that man can 

actually know. Already, this has been established during the renaissance period against the 

formal theological teaching the church with which controlled philosophy, political and social 

norms, morals, doctrines and institutions, that man cannot know anything except by faith. 

Therefore, with the separation of science from religion per se, many scientists, mathematicians, 

geometricians etc. delved into research, which continue to give rise to different theories, 

discoveries and theses till date. Therefore, this paper will give an in-depth understanding of 

David Hume’s view on miracle and his arguments against supernatural events.   

 

AN OVERVIEW OF MIRACLE 

The above term as a result of its epistemological challenges has remained a subject of 

debate among philosophers till date. The word “miracle” is sometimes used in general 

discussions to refer to any unexpected event. However, when it is used in its distinctively 

religious sense, it implies the occurrence of an unusual remarkable event that would not have 

occurred in the exact manner in which it did if God had not intentionally brought it about, that 

is, if “God had not at some point and in some manner directly imposed his divine will on the 

natural order” ( Swinburne,  1970:70). While some philosophers believe in the existence of 

God and his divine powers on the natural order, others do not. In response to the above, 

epistemological critics of miracle conceive the term as the violation of natural laws. For them, 

it is incoherent for such is not obtainable as natural laws.  

Another school of thought, while suggesting that the idea of violation of law be thrown away, 

opined that “miracle” should be reserved for only those occurrences that are permanently 

inexplicable in the sense that no event of this type could ever be given a fully natural 

explanation.  

DAVID HUME’S VIEW ON MIRACLE  

        David Hume, argues that a wise person will always aportion his or her belief to the 

evidence. For him, when such evidences are considered rationally, if they pose no problem and 

for the very fact that natural laws are based on uniform past and present experience, alleged 

miraculous violations of these laws are supported only by the personal testimony of few 

individuals. Consequently, these testimonial evidences are always weaker than the laws they 

claim to have contradicted. Reflectively, since humans by nature want to find mystery and 

wonder where there is none, they passionately believe that miracles occur. Thus, Hume 

maintained that “no human testimony can have such force as to prove a miracle because our 

experience codified in natural laws, offers us sufficient reason not to believe that alleged 

counterinstances to natural laws have actually occurred as reported. 

 According to Hume, the evidence for miracles is weak. Consequently, he argued against 

supernatural events and opined that they ought to be received and treated with contempt. 

The Humean View On Miracle And Its Implications For Religious Beliefs - Hyginus Chibuike EZEBUILO & Asso. Prof Chinyere T. OJIAKOR

 



                                     

 

         Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 1, January 2024 

ISSN: 2786-9792 

195 
 

Basically, Hume outlined arguments against supernatural events which he defined as violations 

of the laws of nature; laws which are so firm and have been confirmed by unalterable 

experience. Admittedly, since natural laws are uniform, public and from past experiences, we 

should always seek and question the evidences of such miraculous claims as they consist solely 

of the personal testimonies of few biased individuals which cannot be substantiated by 

independent testing. For him, it is possible that all men will die, and no miracle can prevent 

them. But it is a miracle that a dead man should come to life. He gave this instance because it 

has never been observed in any age or country.  Peterson,et al 2014:465) 

In his empirical view, as uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is a direct and 

full proof, from the nature of fact, against the existence of any miracle. To maintain this, he 

established two propositions (inferior and superior), known as relatively destructive arguments, 

as the standard of judgment for any miraculous act. Following the inferior argument, the 

fallacies and deceptions behind miraculous stories may stand, but following the superior 

argument which carries natural fact, they cannot be rendered credible because what remains 

after the deduction is inferior, which does not correspond to miracle. To this effect, no 

testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle. unless the testimony  tends to establish falsehood  

and there should be doubt regarding miraculous events because it based on prodigal evidence. 

Hume’s five arguments include: 

THE WITNESSES ARE NOT RELIABLE: According to David Hume, there has never been 

a time in history when miraculous events were attested by a sufficient number of people with 

unquestioned good sense, education and learning let alone having sufficient number of people 

noted for undoubtable integrity, as to place them beyond all suspicions of being capable of 

deception. This is a necessary foundation for any testimony to be upheld. He laid emphasis on 

this criterion because it secures us against all delusions. However, there has never been a time 

such requirement was met; hence the number of the propagators of these pretentious stories is 

always insufficient to make their message true.   

HUMANS ARE GULLIBLE: Analytically, a close examination of human nature has shown 

that human memory is often so unreliable as to distinguish  clearly the assurance on human 

testimony. According to Hume, while accepting some of these testimonies, we often drop the 

use of reason which makes us question such. This is partly due to the passions of surprise and 

wonder, arising from such testimonies. Interestingly, the story does not end there as even those 

who cannot believe these miraculous events gradually become propagators of what they are 

not sure. In addition, human gullibility, coupled with religion, necessarily makes one dismiss 

one’s sensory experiences so that one sees one’s imaginations and wonderful adventures, which 

are often strange, as reality, not regarding that one is aware that such reality is false … there is 

no sufficient judgment to canvass their evidence; yet one perseveres in it in order to promote a 

‘holy cause’.  

EDUCATED PEOPLE ARE SELDOM CONVINCED: Hume believes that educated 

people, unlike the gullible people, are not easily convinced with supernatural stories. Thus, 

they stand in opposition to ignorant, barbarous people who accept these supernatural stories 



 
 

196 
 

without questioning. In the same vein, if such belief is found amidst civilized people, it is 

believed that such stories originated from their barbarous ancestors, who transmitted them with 

inviolable authority. Ignorance then makes one think that these stories are real, but with 

enlightenment, one comes to learn that there is nothing mysterious or supernatural in such 

stories. For this very reason, enlightened people often see these strange things as renowned 

lies, which have spread and flourished because they were sown in a suitable soil (ignorant 

nation), where there is no large correspondence, sufficient credit or authority to contradict or 

beat down its delusion. (Corner, 2007, p, 458). 

THE COUNTEREVIDENCE IS ALWAYS STRONGER: This is a strong criticism against 

miracles which diminishes all authority of prodigies. Accordingly, there is no testimony, even 

those which have not been expressly detected, that is not opposed by an infinite number of 

witnesses. Not only does miracle destroy the credit of testimony, but the testimony also destroys 

itself. All testimonies in different religions stand against one another. As each religion narrates 

this supernatural story in order to establish its own system, more indirectly does it aim to 

overthrow other systems, and as it destroys a rival system, it likewise destroys the credit of its 

already established testimony. Hence, there is no corroboration of one fact. As each proof 

opposes another proof, it makes it even more necessary to reject supernatural stories because 

the same experience which gives authority to human testimony also assures us of the laws of 

nature, and it does not contradict itself.  

WHY MIRACULOUS REPORTS USED TO SUPPORT RELIGIOUS BELIEF ARE 

EVEN MORE DUBIOUS: There is no doubt that Hume recognized his limitations when he 

asserted that a miracle can never be proved, in such a way as to be the foundation of a system 

of religion because there could exist the possibility of violations of the usual course of nature 

which of course can be proved by human testimony. However, it will be impossible to find such 

in the records of history. He disagreed to agree that religion does not emanate from the stories 

of violations of the laws of nature.  Contendingly, outside the experience which we have of 

Being’s productions following the usual course of nature, we cannot know the actions of the 

Being to whom miracles are ascribed. Consequently, we are pushed into comparing the 

instances of the violation of truth in the testimony of men with that considered as the violation 

of the laws of nature. Notably, the violations of truth are more common in the testimony 

concerning religious miracles than any other matter of fact. Therefore, using reason we must 

diminish and never pay attention to these superstitious stories which were founded on faith, not 

on reason (Hume, 1861: 115). 

 

IMPLICATION OF HUME’S VIEW FOR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS 

David Hume's view on miracles has significant implications for religious belief. He not only 

challenged traditional religious claims about supernatural occurrences and their role in 

validating religious beliefs but also the rationality of believing in such, and that is why he 

defined miracle from an empirical perspective in order to establish its irrationality, unreliability 

The Humean View On Miracle And Its Implications For Religious Beliefs - Hyginus Chibuike EZEBUILO & Asso. Prof Chinyere T. OJIAKOR

 



                                     

 

         Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 1, January 2024 

ISSN: 2786-9792 

197 
 

and the fact that there is nothing unnatural about supernatural stories. The end product of his 

view is radical scepticism towards miracle. This is so because miracles are incoherent with 

natural laws and this makes the occurrence necessarily probable and uncertain. Accordingly, 

from the uniform experience of the external world which is based on the regularity of natural 

laws, it is more reasonable to doubt miraculous claims than to accept them because it is unfair 

to describe natural operations of the universe as miracle. 

Obviously, his view has laid more ground for naturalistic theology against sacred 

theology. This seeks to interpret religious truths with human reason, moral sentiments and 

evidence, (Hume, 1978: 212-320),  hence it provides justification for considering religion as a 

social construct that serves a specific function as against the sacred realist conception of an 

Absolute Being. Therefore, instead of attributing these extraordinary occurrences to divine 

intervention, many people now seek natural explanations, or question the authenticity of the 

reported events. In addition, with the credibility of miracles being called into question, 

contemporary believers have suddenly placed more significance on experiences and proper 

basic belief which is the rational justification for the existence of God rather than relying on 

external supernatural stories. This makes religion a philosophical and scientific enterprise, 

thereby removing the inhuman elements in various religious beliefs.  

Just like Nietzsche’s view on eternal reoccurrence which holds that time and events will 

keep reoccurring till infinity, (Copleston, 1965: 189),  and in line with the laws of thermo-

dynamics, there is no need of attributing anything to a “Being whose actions are unknown” 

(Peterson, 2014:471),  because there is nothing absolutely new in the universe; things will keep 

reoccurring. In line with this, given the incredibility of supernatural stories, man should 

introspect and find possible ways of turning himself into an overman so as to be able to develop 

himself and the material world. Subsequently, religious claims and concepts such as 

resurrection, God, angel, salvation, etc could be explained using this view. Definitely, the 

human person would succumb to the change of becoming without relying on any transcendental 

Being. 

Analytically, from the 20th century till date, Hume’s criticism of Miracle has remained 

a subject matter for debates and counter debates. While many empirical scientists and 

philosophers argued against miracle, which implies the denial of the existence of the Ultimate 

Reality, who, according to Paul Tillich, in every divine manifestation, makes himself present 

in time and space, the theistic philosophers maintained that there exists a Being whose 

existence must not be proven empirically. This has sparked off a contention between the theistic 

and atheistic philosophers/scientists regarding the nature of miracles and their compatibility 

with religious beliefs. Notably, this has negatively impacted on many religious systems, 

especially those systems which are not open to critical evaluation and questioning.   

Interestingly, Hume’s logical interpretation of Miracle embraces matters of fact, and 

the claims that only authentic proof comes from experience and the use of reason against all 

form of Absolute authority. By implication, matters of fact can actually be known through 

reason alone and they exist independent of the perceiver. Thus, the evidence required to 



 
 

198 
 

establish a miracle should always be weighed against the evidence for the regularity of the laws 

of nature. Notably, this discards all ‘religious language and symbols’ which make no sense 

outside the religious context. 

Contrastingly, it is important to note that while Hume's views have influenced religious 

belief, they have not rendered it obsolete or universally rejected. Many believers and religious 

traditions continue to maintain faith in miracles, emphasizing the roles of personal conviction, 

religious experiences, and the importance of faith beyond empirical evidence. Again, Karl 

Popper’s view that a theory can be falsified  can be properly upheld in regard to this because 

there was a time in history when science was non-science. Therefore, the critics of miracle 

should take it easy for with time, the rational existence of the Being itself may be empirically 

proven.  

 

EVALUATION      

Hume as a strict empiricist has established that man’s existence is totally different from 

the creation story fashioned on myth through his enthronement of reason against faith. Away 

from religion, and from an epistemological perspective, there is no doubt that ‘miracle’ offers 

us knowledge. Nevertheless, Hume questions the possibility of such knowledge and its 

certainty and verifiability. The term miracle which entails the violation of nature has been 

bastardized and misused by man in line with what Karl Marx considered as the opium of the 

people, and as such it has become a tool for massive social exploitation. It makes people 

incapable of understanding their social conditioning (labour) and enthrones extreme fatalism.  

However, there are things beyond empirical observations and explanations. Thus, 

Hume failed to explain the immaterial aspect of the human person that makes for the possibility 

of miracle owing to the fact that man has some spiritual craving which he aspires to satisfy. In 

addition, Hume’s position was filled with assumptions especially when he opined that 

enlightened people do not believe or relate these miraculous messages. Some philosophers of 

religion have argued against this position. For them, there are some circumstances could be 

explained in consonance with nature but the resultant effect of these circumstances could be 

termed miracle. Put differently, there is no need to assume that a miracle must contradict the 

laws of nature. 

 

CONCLUSION 

In a nutshell, having rigorously examined Hume’s view on miracle, it is still worth 

nothing that upon reflection on Hume’s argument, the ultimate problem remains that the 

individual seeking to accept such a claim has a double burden of holding that the event took 

place and that it “violated” a law of nature. Analytically, if this individual has very strong 

evidence that a seeming counterinstance to natural law has occurred, then she or he has a very 

strong reason to believe that the law as currently understood is inadequate. In addition, if this 

The Humean View On Miracle And Its Implications For Religious Beliefs - Hyginus Chibuike EZEBUILO & Asso. Prof Chinyere T. OJIAKOR

 



                                     

 

         Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 1, January 2024 

ISSN: 2786-9792 

199 
 

individual has very strong evidence that the laws of nature are adequate, then he or she has a 

very strong reason to believe that the seeming counterinstance did not occur as reported. 

Accordingly, to maintain that these laws are adequate and still believe that there has occurred 

a counter instance is extremely difficult.   

However, many scholars have criticized the views of Hume and his contemporaries 

using four types of evidence about past events: personal memories, the testimony of others, 

physical traces, and the contemporary understanding of what is possible. Admittedly, 

experience codified in natural laws, presents justification to believe that alleged 

counterinstances to natural laws have actually occurred as reported; but while personal 

memories can be faulty, past experience gives us reason to believe they should be given strong 

credence. Despite the fact that the testimony of others could also be faulty, there are sound 

methods for determining the reliability of such testimony and this could be easily done through 

increasing sophisticated physical traces and we ought not to believe that these forms of 

evidence could not, in principle, outweigh the evidence of physical impossibility. Hence, the 

counterinstances to natural laws cannot be ruled out in an a priori manner. 

 

  

 

  



 
 

200 
 

References 

Bradley, F.H. (1914).  Essays on Truth and Reality. Oxford University Pres.  

Copleston, F. (1965). A history of philosophy. Volume 7, Modern philosophy II, Schopenhauer 

to Nietzsche. Image books.   

Corner, D. (2007). The Philosophy of Miracles. Continuum. 

Cottingham, J. (2020). Soul, Science, and Subjectivity. In In search of the Soul: A philosophical 

essay, 70–99. Princeton University Press, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvp7d4xk.6 

Ezebuilo, H. C. (2021). A hermeneutic consideration of Karl Popper’s falsification theory. 

Nnamdi Azikiwe Journal of Philosophy, 12, 2. 

Ezebuilo, H. C. (2022). Epistemology at a Glance. Iprogress Press. 

Feyerabend, P. (1985). Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method: Philosophical Papers. 

Volume 1. Cambridge University Press.  

Hume, D. (1861). An inquiry into human understanding. J.B Bebbington, 

Hume, D. (1978). An enquiry concerning human understanding. In A treatise of human nature.  

(Eds.) L. A. Selby-Bigge and P. H. Nidditc. Clarendon Press.  

Hume, D. (1999). An enquiry concerning human understanding. (Ed.) T. L. Beauchamp. 

Oxford University Press.  

Lawhead, W. F. (2007). The voyage of discovery: A historical introduction to philosophy. 

Cengage Learning. 

Malafouris, L. (2016). How things shape the mind: A theory of material engagement. MIT 

Press.  

Peterson, M, W. Hasker, et al. (2014). Philosophy of religion: selected readings, 5th edition. 

Oxford University Press.  

Smith, J. (1968). Experience and God. Oxford University Press.  

Swinburne, R. (1970). The concept of miracle. Macmillan.   

 

 

 

The Humean View On Miracle And Its Implications For Religious Beliefs - Hyginus Chibuike EZEBUILO & Asso. Prof Chinyere T. OJIAKOR

 

https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvp7d4xk.6

