Does Hume have a point? The laws of nature are based on human experience. However, these laws are based on experience to date. Scientific knowledge is based on human observation, and many (so called) facts have been overturned following further evidence. Hume assumes that the ‘laws of nature’ are constant, whereas science moves knowledge ever onward. For example: scientific fact up to the 17th Century was that the earth was the centre of the universe. Even in Hume’s time the sun was considered to be the centre. Now, we know better!

Modern science has moved beyond Newtonian mechanics towards a world of probabilities. There is growing evidence for randomness in nature. Many things were thought of as impossible, such as men in space, or the ability to talk to someone on the other side of the world. These things are now thought of as commonplace.

Hume argued that accounts of miraculous events should be dismissed because the witnesses lack credibility. The RC Church maintains a hit squad of doctors and scientists who are called in to verify claims. Hume’s argument is based on the idea that intellectuals have too much to lose by making such a claim. For example: some of the most eminent scientists in the world are members of this team. The R C Church has too much to lose from claims of miraculous events, and yet there have been 68 attested claims, supported by the Church. (Vardy, The Puzzle of God) However, Anthony Flew points out that the power of such testimony may be difficult to dispute, but it does not necessarily mean that the miracle is attributable to God – the power of the human mind is still only partially understood.

Hume’s claim that religions base their credibility on miracles is not true. Apart from the miracles of Jesus (which appear to have been performed out of compassion, rather than to make any claims of authority), none of the mainstream religious movements actually make such a claim. Hume made no mention of how a person should respond to miracles where they themselves experienced them. Experience of a miracle would count as evidence to the person.

Two further points: 1.Hume’s definition (the violation concept) “a violation of a natural law” – is self-defeating. A law of nature cannot be violated, otherwise it is not a law in the first place. 2. Miracles require religious belief – to see something as a miracle is to already see it from the point of faith. Miracles already presuppose religious belief and cannot therefore serve to prove it.

Maurice Wiles Wiles argues that God’s action in the world would not be confined to particular instances. ‘RATHER THE DIVINE ACTION SHOULD BE IN RELATION TO THE WORLD AS A WHOLE’. THERE IS NO SINGLE ACT OF God applicable to an instance, but a constant act of God applying to the world as a whole. Wiles considers a God that interferes in the laws of nature to be arbitrary – if God does intervene, why is there suffering in the world? Why does God not intervene where children are suffering?