'Swinburne's defence of miracles in response to Hume is not valid'

A - Swinburne’s defence is valid - in response to Hume’s understanding of the laws of nature

The debate around the validity of miracles has supporters and critics on both sides
Some would say that Swinburne’s defence of miracles is valid - particularly in response to Hume’s understanding of the laws of nature
Swinburne offers a more balanced approach to interpreting the laws of nature whilst not rejecting them entirely and still accounting for the possibility of miracles

He would be right to assert that the laws of nature are only descriptions of what has always happened, not a guarantee of what will always happen
Whereas Hume insists that the laws of nature are never broken - which to his credit is empirically probable but not absolute proof that it never happens
On this point, Swinburne allows for the upholding of modern scientific enquiry whilst also allowing for the possibility of a miracle event

C - However, Hume is reasonable to suggest laws of nature are never broken

However Hume is reasonable to suggest that the laws of nature are never broken,
because our experience of them is constant and modern science has updated our understanding of nature in a way that rules out the possibility of miracles

The philosopher Antony Flew said that Hume rejects historical evidence of witnesses and favours the laws of nature not being violated because the historical evidence is often appealing to a singular past event that is no longer possible to examine directly
However, the supposed law of nature can be tested at any time by any person
He further argues that ‘the wise person proportions their belief to the evidence’
Suggests the reason why people believed in miracles thousands of years ago is because of their limited understanding of the laws of nature
Clearly making this argument acceptable to the 21st century understanding of science

C - Swinburne’s defence is valid as he potentially counter’s Hume on this point - historical evidence can count

Swinburne potentially counters Hume on this point because he does recognise that evidence is important and there needs to be a way of establishing types of evidence and their weight
It is actually possible that historical evidence can count as well as laws of nature

Historical evidence isn’t just written or verbal testimony
It is also about the character, mind and competence of the original witnesses and physical traces of the event including present effects resulting from the event
Historical evidence needs to be considered as a whole not just as something that happened in the past that we can’t see now

In conclusion, it is evident that Swinburne offers an adequate defence that some may find convincing as he offers a more balanced approach while looking at historical evidence as a whole and not just a part
However some may still find Hume’s empiricism more convincing

A - Swinburne’s defence is valid as he successfully points out faults in Hume’s criticisms of the credibility of witnesses

Swinburne’s defence of miracles in response to Hume is valid as he successfully points out faults in Hume’s criticisms of the credibility of witnesses
Swinburne accepts that Hume’s 3 arguments against miracles involving the credibility of witnesses is valid
However, he makes the point that the standards of evidence that Hume sets are very high - questioning what exactly constitutes a sufficient number of witnesses
And that some people are just scrupulously honest, along with it being unjustified to assume that people from ‘non-celebrated parts of the world’ are uneducated when they may not be

According to Swinburne it might seem that more people who claim they witnessed an event is more persuasive than one persons claim to witness it - majority is given more weight than the minority

E.g. if 5 people all claim the same thing, it is more persuasive than 1 person saying something contrary despite education and if they are in a ‘celebrated part of the world’
Unless we can explain why the 5 people all said the same thing e.g. they had plotted together to give false testimony
Evidently, Swinburne offers a persuasive defence for weighing up the evidence of miracles concerning quantity - still allowing for the possibility of miracles

C - However, Hume is reasonable for his credibility of witnesses argument - is the quantity of witnesses really the deciding factor?

However, the quantity of the witnesses shouldn’t really be the deciding factor, it should depend more on the quality of the witnesses
Hume seems right to argue that what is required is a quantity of educated, trustworthy, witnesses to a public event in a ‘celebrated part of the world’ - who would also have a lot to lose if they were found to be lying
Less likely to be delusional or misinterpret events

For example, people like Richard Dawkins would meet this criteria
This would make a testimony from people like this more convincing than that of people who may not be of ‘unquestioned good sense as to secure us against all delusions in themselves’
This clearly shows the quality of witnesses is just as crucial as the quantity and makes Hume’s point still stand

In conclusion, Swinburne may not offer a completely valid defence of miracles in terms of witnesses because it is absurd to overlook the importance of the quality of the witnesses.

A - Swinburne’s defence of miracles in response to competing faith claims is valid

Hume argues that the truth claims of a religion were demonstrated by miracles within that religion
Therefore if miracles occur in more than one religion they cancel each other out
However, Swinburne argues that miracles in different religions have not been about truth claims, but about demonstrations of the power of God
He doesn’t see them as contests between different religions but about the existence of God

Swinburne gives a fictional example of conflicting miracles
A devout Roman Catholic might pray for a miracle to demonstrate the truth of the doctrine of transubstantiation when the tabernacle is levitated
However a dedicated protestant might pray for a miracle to happen to show that the doctrine of transubstantiation is idolatrous - then lightning strikes and destroys the tabernacle
However Swinburne makes the point that religious miracles are not of this type
Miracles in the context of Hinduism and one in Islam will not show that specific details of their respective religion are true
Instead, would only show Gods power and concern for the needs of people e.g. healing of the sick
Evidently, Swinburne is valid to say that miracles aren’t conflicting

C - However, Hume may be right as there are miracles used as truth claims

Hume’s point may still stand because there are miracles in religions that are appealed to as evidence for the truth of a religion,
meaning miracles in other religions would destroy the evidence of that religion vice versa

In Christianity the New Testament itself states that the resurrection of Jesus is proof that Christianity it the only true faith
However the revelation from angel Gabriel to Prophet Muhammad is a key miracle in Islam - along with him being illiterate yet being able to recite it
Surely miracle testimonies found in all religions cannot all be true and cancel each other out when claiming the truth of that religion - the existence of miracles here can be questioned

In conclusion, Hume’s point is definitely still adequate and Swinburne fails to successfully defend miracles in the aspect of competing faith claims
Because it is either one religions miracles are true, or potentially none of them if they are all conflicting.
However some people argue that God reveals himself in different ways to different people through different religions