The David Hume god

It seems that David Hume always comes up when a Christian and Atheist dialogue.  His name may not appear in the conversation, but his evidential proof seems to always be implied.  What is the evidential proof of Hume? 

Consider some of these quotes from Hume: "We should never repose the least confidence in human testimony," or "It is a miracle, that a dead man should come back to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country.  There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event," or "We readily reject any fact which is unusual and incredible in an ordinary degree."[1]   The evidential proof of Hume is the outright denial of miracles, even miracles attested to by witnesses should never be accepted.  On Hume's account, unless one has 100% proof, the event should be rejected.  How does Hume's testimony hold up by using his own criteria?

Hume fails the test, when his criteria is applied to himself, for no one can give 100% evidence, atheist or Christian.  If we are to reject human testimony, then what shall we do with Hume's testimony?  Philosopher William Lane Craig states, "For an argument to be a good one, it isn't required that we have 100% certainty." [2]  In a court of law, the evidence only needs to be tipped in your favor (51% or greater).  When looking at miracles, like the resurrection story of Jesus, 100 % proof is not what is needed.  All claims can be evaluated on their merits and an inference to best explanation is what should count. The late atheist turned theist, Anthony Flew, was honest when he said, "we should follow the evidence wherever it leads." [3]

So why do atheist seem to worship at the feet of David Hume?  It is my belief that some simply do not have any evidence to their view in the non-existence of God, but also, and I think most importantly, many who reject Jesus do so because they do not want to submit to who he is.  In other words, they want to live an unhindered life to indulge themselves in whatever they want.  Philosopher Thomas Nagel summarizes the view of many atheist nicely by saying, "I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.  It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief.  It's that I hope there is no God!  I don't want there to be a God.  I don't want a universe like that." [4]  At least Nagel is honest.  When the atheist has his mind made up because of Humeian evidence, they no longer are atheist, but worship the David Hume god which turns out to look strangely like themselves!

[1]  Hume, David, Of Miracles, 1776

[2]  Craig, William Lane, God, Are You There?, p.7

[3]  Interview with Anthony Few at Biola University, 2004

[4]  Nagel, Thomas, The Last Word, p. 130

Miracles: Top-down vs. Bottom-up

One of the greatest stumbling blocks to skeptics concerning God's existence is a miracle. The scientific/naturalistic view, which developed during the Enlightenment period of Charles Darwin theology, left no room for the possibility of miracles. A miracle can be defined as "an extraordinary, extremely outstanding or unusual event." [1] The event is so unusual that Supernatural explanation is often given to account for the event. In the naturalistic worldview the Supernatural explanation is ruled out. If naturalistic science cannot explain an anomaly, the future will surely provide an explanation, because the naturalistic worldview does not permit any counter explanations outside of the realm of what occurs in nature. The question then arises, "Does science hold all the answers to those alleged miracles or is it reasonable to believe that a non-naturalistic explanation of reality of miracles exists?"

If miracles are a stumbling block and one is open to the possibility that a purely naturalistic explanation may not provide the most reasonable evidence for miracles, then what approach should one take. Two possibilities emerge called the Bottom-up approach and the Top-down approach. Let's take a look at both views, which much of the emphasis on the Bottom-up approach, to see if these anomalies of nature could fit a Supernatural explanation.

Both Bottom-up and Top-down approach are aptly named, for the former starts here on earth with miracles and works its way to God (arguing from miracles to God's existence), while the second argues for God's existence and proceeds toward Supernatural miracles. In the Bottom-up approach we have reasons to believe that Supernatural miracles have taken place and therefore, can reason that God exists. In the top-down approach, if it could be shown that God exists, then it is within reason to believe that miracles are Supernaturally possible. The bottom-up approach tends to lean heavily on historical evidence, which for many is a stumbling block in itself.

My personal preference is the Bottom-up approach, although I believe that both approaches can be equally effective depending on the disposition of the person that one is in dialogue with. If one has a skeptical bias against historical evidence, the Top-down approach should be employed. But, if one is open to historical evidence and the reliability of the Bible, then the Bottom-up approach could be effective. In both approaches the need for background work might be necessary. For example, an understanding of logic and the limits of science would be helpful for the Top-down method, where the Bottom-up approach , a historical foundation would be helpful concerning the New Testament and other first century documents.

One of the big proponents of the Bottom-up approach is Dr. Gary Habermas. In numerous articles and books, Habermas offers evidence for perhaps one of the most contested anomalies in history, that being the resurrection of Jesus. [2] If one is willing to accept that Jesus lived during the first century, but is unsure of miracles, then three powerful evidences can be given to show that the resurrection story was most probably miraculous.

In arguing for or against miracles, ultimately all possibilities must be considered if one is to be open minded. Historical evidence and the evidence of logic must be looked at. Looking at all the evidence from a purely naturalistic vantage will not provide a complete picture. The overwhelming evidence of first century documents points to the resurrection of Jesus. And, if the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation, then the door is wide open for miracles, the existence of God, and the purpose of life. If the resurrection of Jesus is the most plausible explanation, then this event tips the scales in favor of Jesus as being the promised Messiah.

What evidence supports the resurrection story? the first argument is the empty tomb. There is substantial evidence in history that the tomb was not only known, but was empty of the body of Jesus three days after his death. Jacob Kremer states, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements about the empty tomb." [3]

The changed lives in people, who were willing to die and in many cases did for their belief in the resurrection of Jesus, is the second argument for the truthfulness of the resurrection of Jesus. Not only did people radically change and believe in the resurrection, but some of these changes lives were people who were formally antagonistic or doubtful of Jesus. One of Jesus own apostles, Thomas, would not believe unless he could physically touch and see Jesus (John 20:27). the life of Thomas forever changed, and according to tradition, he paid for his life as a martyr preaching the resurrection of Jesus. James, the brother of Jesus. is another individual who changed his view of Jesus. James, previous to the death of Jesus was far from believing in him (Mark 3:21; John 7:1-10). After Jesus appeared to his brother (Gal. 1:19), his life radically changed from an non-believer to a leader of the early Church (Acts 21:18). Finally, Paul, who persecuted the Church and Jesus (Acts 9:1-5), made the radical leap from a leader in the Jewish religion to one who gave his life in the pursuit and proclamation in the resurrection of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:1-20).

The third bit of evidence deals with the post-resurrection appearances. Theologian Michael Green has stated, "The appearances of Jesus are as well authenticated as anything in antiquity...There can be no rational doubt that they occurred and that they are the main reason why Christians became sure of the resurrection." [4]

The empty tomb, changed lives in the disciples, and the resurrection appearances provide strong support for one of the most contested anomalies on record. If the resurrection of Jesus is true, it not only validates his life and miracles, but also provides substantial evidence in the existence of God. The Bottom-up method can be effective if one is open to the historical evidence. If one were pre-disposed against any historical evidence, the Top-down approach would be the most logical argument for miracles. The open-minded person should not be closed to all the possibilities concerning miracles or anomalies. When all arguments are given concerning the existence of miracles, there is overwhelming evidence to believe that miracles are not only possible, but they are the most probable explanation of extremely outstanding events. If the Bottom-up approach for miracles using the historical evidence of the resurrection can be grasped by the skeptic, it offers the ultimate hope and purpose to the person without God. As J.R.R. Tolkien states concerning the resurrection of Jesus, "There has never been a story which men more wished were true."

[1] Merrian-Webster's School Dictionary, 1999, s.v. "Miracle"
[2] Link to Gary Habermas
[3] Jacob Kremer as quoted in William Lane Craig's, Reasonable Faith, 1994, p. 277
[4] Michael Green as quoted in Lee Strobel's, The Case For Faith, 2004, p. 240