Hume vs. Pascal

Imagine living in a world very different than the one that we know today. A world based strictly on your personal experiences alone. However, this world has no presence of of hope. Without the concept of hope there is no way to look forward to things to come; no way to obtain faith. A world of fact based on personal experience alone, with the absence of hope or faith, only trusting in fact alone, is the world david Hume portrays in An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. How does one live in a world without hope for tomorrow and believing in things to come? The presumption that Hume takes is based on skepticism and a supreme lack of trust in other man. Hume argues that you can’t trust people or the Bible because it is based on the testimony of man. Pascal contradicts Hume in almost every aspect. He advocates for the validity of testimony, faith, and miracles.  

Hume develops the idea that death is a law of nature and resurrection is not. He states, “We may observe in human nature a principle, which, if strictly examined, will be found to diminish extremely the assurance, which we might, from human testimony, have, in any kind of prodigy… where there is an opposition of arguments, we ought to give the preference to such as are founded on the greatest number of past observations.” (Hume 84). Resurrection is not in the laws of nature because someone died and was brought back to life. If someone is brought back to life after being dead, that would be hard for people to comprehend. Hume would not believe a persons’ testimony on that if he did not encounter it himself. If he saw someone raised back to life from the dead, he would have to determine if he in fact saw something that does not have a law of nature attached to it yet, like a miracle, or if it is something not discovered yet. So the question remains, is he actually open to the truth? Why would he or should he believe in something that happens that he doesn’t witness or feel he can prove himself.

Hume’s belief that the Bible is faulty because it is based on testimony has some merit but  is also significantly flawed. He states, “The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), ‘That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish’” (Hume 83). Yes, the Bible is based on complete testimony, but not just the testimony of one person. If the Bible was based on just one person’s testimony, Hume’s concept would be easier to support and get behind. However, the Bible is based on the testimony of countless people and was written by over 40 different people who were either eyewitness or inspired by the Holy Spirit. Now more than 2,000 years later not a single idea in the Bible has been proven wrong. People can not base their feelings or faith in something that happens every day. It would not be called a miracle if it happened all the time. 

Webster’s dictionary defines a miracle as an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs. If a miraculous event happened on more than one occasion or everyday it would be easier to believe in what was happening so it would not be as miraculous. Pascal explains that miracles can not happen on a regular basis because we do not need them anymore. He states, “Now there is no more need of them against the Jews and unbelievers, for the prophecies which have been fulfilled are a constant miracle.” (Pascal 61). Pascal goes on to argue that since Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection was the ultimate miracle and fulfillment of prophecy that no further miracles were needed. He explains, “And how could the nations be converted to the Messiah, not seeing the final effect of the prophecies which prove him? So before he died, risen again, and converted the nations, everything had not been accomplished, and so the miracles were necessary during the whole of this time.” (Pascal 61). 

Hume contradicts himself in his concept that you can’t rely on a person’s testimony. He states, “A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature.” (Hume 83). Hume spends all this time arguing that you can’t trust a person’s testimony if they claim something that doesn’t accord with the laws of nature. He is so untrusting that he doesn’t believe what anyone says. He doesn’t believe miracles happen unless he sees them himself, and even then he has to consider if it was one or not. Later, he says, “I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle” (Hume 83). By his own reasoning, he contradicts himself and says he will believe a miracle but only the one that doesn’t require as much faith to believe it happened. Hume uses reason to reduce everything he says to its most plausible conclusion. It takes more faith to believe in the greater miracle than in the smaller one which is why he has such a difficult time doing so. Yet by his own admission, he somewhat believes in miracles. Hume is saying the most plausible explanation of the two choices, even if it is still improbable, must be true. He is open to the truth, but only if he sees it for himself. If you apply this concept to something other than religion, his knowledge would not be the best. For instance, Hume wouldn’t believe that someone actually walked on the moon in 1969 or that the Wright brothers discovered how to fly in 1903 because it was something that had never happened before. Pascal on the other hand would say that since these events have already happened, and there is documented proof, no further action would be needed to prove their veracity. 

It seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Hume wrote An Enquiry to Human Understanding in 1748. This entire book is a defense against the belief of faith. It would be foolish for someone to believe in something that happens all the time or everyday. It is better to believe in something that is false than to not believe in something at all and it turns out to be true. In Pascal’s Pensées, he states, “Order. I should be frightened of being wrong and finding out that the Christian religion was true than of being wrong in believing it to be true.”(Pascal 5). For example, as Christians we have faith that heaven exists, therefore we live our lives with the goal of getting to heaven when we die. If we live our lives in such a way to get there and it doesn’t exist, what have we lost? We have lived a good life! If we die and it does exist, we’ve gained eternity. Everything we do requires a little bit of faith, why not choose the thing to believe in that is a win win situation.  

Pascal gives this idea that miracles are the reason for believing. His concept is polar opposite with Hume’s belief that miracles are just laws of nature that have not been discovered yet. Pascal argues how it is impossible to prove the existence of God through human reasoning. He explains, “If we submit everything to reason, our religion will contain nothing mysterious or supernatural. If we shock the principles of reason, our religion will be absurd and ridiculous.” (Pascal 60). What Pascal is saying is trying to explain miracles in human logic and terms is almost impossible. It will do nothing more than reduce the many different miracles that we see in both the Old Testament and the New Testament to something that commonly happens on a regular basis and would have no spiritual impact on anyone that saw, experienced, or heard about a supernatural event that occured. Since human reasoning can not determine the truth whether God exists or not, you must have faith and believe no matter if you witness a miracle or not. Pascal states, “Jesus Christ performed miracles… nothing could be a witness apart from the miracles.” (Pascal 61). Without Jesus performing the miracles, we as Christians would not be able to tell the story of Jesus because it all fits together. 

The story of Jesus is why we believe what we believe today. It is easily known and said that our world today is divided into two different types of people. Those that believe what Pascal’s concepts are or Hume’s thoughts and ideas. Those that believe Pascal’s thoughts that are based on faith and hope or the concept that Hume created of not trusting a person’s testimony enough are complete opposite thoughts. Everyone has a side they are on.