Was Hume right to think that one should never believe that a miracle has taken place on the basis of testimony?

 David Hume (1711 - 1776) in " An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding " a book published in 18th century refers - among other topics -  to miracles and whether we can believe their existence on the basis of human testimony or not. He thinks that testimony isn't as powerful as the evidence of senses. Thus, believing in miracles on the basis of testimony is something we should never do. Doubt, creative doubt, not negativism, has always been a friend, an ally in finding the truth. Moreover when the question comes to miracles which by definition contradict to nature's laws.

The human factor is crucial in this topic. People have prooved that their intentions when it comes to miracles and their existence aren't that innocent. They have some kind of profit either materialistic or just serving their vanity for being able to manipulate others.Moreover, human's past has proved that false testimony is something far from unusual. Let's note that believing in a miracle just because someone or even a lot of people told you so, requires ignorance of the alleged fact. Moreover the inability of examining its conditions and not be able to explain it scientifically.

And this is the point where  religious factor intrudes. Many miraculus incidents appear to relate with God and his intention of either helping people or demonstrate his power.  Revered icons weeping, incurable patients find their cure miraculously, sea builds on two etc. There is only one point behind all these: Power. You realise how weak you must be (or must feel), related to the person that has the knowledge of the miracle and his alleged source. How can anyone be sceptical when it comes to religion matters? Religion relates to emotion,  the fear of the unknown, of death. Logic is another "land" that we must step in order to believe or not in these incidents.

One could argue that if we didn't believe in human testimony then society's connective bonds would be disrupted. Trust is important in any relationship and mistrusting each other couldn't help at all. In addition, inventions like automatic doors that open with photocells, or even an elevator would seem like a miracle to any person that hasn't the experience or the knowledge. Denying that sometthing like that has happened would seem foolish and ignorant. There is a point in all these arguments.On the other hand, any similar risks can be faced.

And the best way is critical capacity. This should be the goal of every society. Not denial neither negativism. And the basis of this capacity is knowledge, spherical, deep understanding of issues concerning our everyday lifes. This value can be applied in our attitude towards miracles. Hume thinks that in order to believe a testimony we must have evidence of reliability that this person is right. This is a criterion that relates to the credibility of the source. The other criterion should be logic. They both stand on education.

At this point we could describe the consequences of believing in miracles on the basis of testimony. At first, a society with members  that hurry to believe anything, no matter how incredible might sound, will be formed. This majority wouldn't accept any different opinion and thus the minority will "suffer" from marginalization. Furthermore, this kind of society can easily be manipulated by anyone who has the power or the special interest to act this way (in politics, religion,economy etc). It is what we call mob psychology - definitely not  the character we want our civilization to have. It would remind us of other eras of the human history, times that were related to darkness.

So, Hume has verbalised what should be a virtue that characterises every single person of our world: Intellectual aytonomy. We are obliged to examine and re - examine all the information that reach our attention, even more when it comes to miraculous ones. The parameters of every incident are very important in order to reach to the right conclusion. Hume mentions characteristically that "no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact which it endeavors to establish".* Believing in a miracle a priori looks like a miracle itself.


 * "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding  And Concerning Principal Of Morals"  David Hume,PH.Nidditch, LA. Selby - Bigge