But it must
be admitted that Hume has surrounded the kernel of his essay with a
shell of very doubtful value.
The first step in this, as in all other discussions, is to come to a
clear understanding as to the meaning of the terms employed.
Argumentation whether miracles are possible, and, if possible, credible,
is mere beating the air until the arguers have agreed what they mean by
the word "miracles."
Hume, with less than his usual perspicuity, but in accordance with a
common practice of believers in the miraculous, defines a miracle as a
"violation of the laws of nature," or as "a transgression of a law of
nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of
some invisible agent."
There must, he says,--
"be an uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise
the event would not merit that appellation. And as an uniform
experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full
proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any
miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed or the miracle rendered
credible but by an opposite proof which is superior."--(IV. p.
134.)
Every one of these dicta appears to be open to serious objection.
The word "miracle"--_miraculum_,--in its primitive and legitimate sense,
simply means something wonderful.
Cicero applies it as readily to the fancies of philosophers, "Portenta
et miracula philosophorum somniantium," as we do to the prodigies of
priests.
Pages:
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155