XI. THE UNBELIEVER'S MISCONCEPTION OF EXPERIENCE
CHAPTER XI THE UNBELIEVER'S MISCONCEPTION OF EXPERIENCE
David Hume wrote a famous essay against miracles in which he argued that we know that testimony is frequently false; that a miracle is contrary to our experience; and that therefore any testimony to the effect that a miracle was performed by Jesus must be rejected. It is in harmony with our experience that testimony is often false, but it is not in harmony with our experience for miracles to happen; therefore, it is more likely that the testimony is false than that a miracle has actually taken place. Some have considered this to be an unanswerable argument against miracles as testified to by the New Testament. One of the excellent answers to this argument is found in the writings of Richard Whately. We shall present the gist of his answer.
I. THE TWOFOLD MEANING OF EXPERIENCE
Hume failed to distinguish between two different applications of the word experience. By experience we sometimes mean general experience and sometimes our personal experience, which is not based on the testimony or experience of another. If Hume had explained "whose Experience he meant, the argument would have come to nothing: if he means, the Experience of mankind universal, i. e. that a Miracle has never come under the Experience of any one, this is palpably begging the question: if he means the Experience of each individual who has never himself witnessed a Miracle, this would establish a rule (viz. that we are to believe nothing of which we have not ourselves experienced the like) which it would argue insanity to act upon. Not only was the King of Bantam justified (as Hume himself admits) in listening to no evidence for the existence of Ice, but no one would be authorized on his principle to expect his own death. His Experience informs him, directly, only that others have died. Every disease under which he himself may have labored, his Experience must have told him has not terminated fatally; if he is to judge strictly of the future by the past, according to this rule, what should hinder him from expecting the like of all future dieases?
"Perhaps however he meant, if indeed he had any distinct meaning, something intermediate between universal, and individual experience; viz. the Experience of the generality, as to what is common and of ordinary occurrence; in which sense the maxim will only amount to this, that false Testimony is a thing of common occurrence, and that Miracles are not. An obvious truth, indeed; but too general to authorize, of itself, a conclusion in any particular case. In any other individual question, as to the admissibility of evidence, it would be reckoned absurd to consider merely the average chances for the truth of Testimony in the abstract, without inquiring what the Testimony is, in the particular instance before us. As if e. g. any one had maintaned that no testimony could establish Columbus's account of the discovery of America, because it is more common for travelers to lie, than for new Continents to be discovered. Such a procedure involves a manifest ignoratic elenchi; the two propositions brought forward as opposed, being by no means incompatible: Experience tells us that 'a destructive hurricane is not a common occurrence'; certain persons tell us that 'a destructive hurricane occurred in the West Indies, at such a time'; there is (as Dr. Campbell has pointed out) no opposition between these two assertions.
"It is to be observed by the way, that there is yet an additional ambiguity in the entire phrase 'contrary to experience'; in one sense, a miracle, or any other event„ may be contrary to the experience of any one who has never witnessed the like; as the freezing of water was to that of the King of Bantam; in another the stricter sense, that only is contrary to a man's experience, which he knows by experience not to be true; as if one should be told of an infallible remedy for some disorder, he having seen it administered without effect. No testimony can establish what is, in this latter sense, contrary to experience."
Not only do Hume's arguments reduce themselves to absurdity, when examined closely, but they also contradict other positions held by Hume. "The author himself seems plainly to have meant it as a specimen of his ingenuity in arguing on a given hypothesis; for he disputes against miracles as contrary to the Course of Nature; whereas, according to him, there is no such thing as a Course of Nature; his scepticism extends to the whole external world;--to every thing, except the ideas or impressions on the mind of the individual; so that a miracle which is believed, has, in that circumstance alone, on his principles a much reality as any thing can have."
The answer Whately made to Hume is also the answer which can be made to the Pragmatist or Experimentalist today who rejects Christ and His wonders on the basis that the whole thing is contrary to experience.
II. THE MYTH OF HITLER
The unbelievers, who argue against Christianity as did Hume, overlook the fact that their own arguments can be turned against them and used to disprove any other fact of history. The approach that some of them have used to deny that Jesus Christ ever existed can also be used to deny the existence of persons whose existence they have never thought to doubt and a doubt of which they would consider to be crazy. And yet, they must doubt the existence of these persons if they continue to cling to their socalled logic and follow it to its inevitable conclusion. Let us briefly use some of the arguments that skeptics have used to show that Christ is incredible, and apply them to the existence of Hitler.
I cannot admit the existence of Hitler for that such a person has ever lived is contrary to my experience. Neither I nor my friends have known of any character who has been able to do such amazing things with a whole nation. Our experience tells us that we have never met such a character; our experience also tells us that it is more likely that such a character should be a creation of fiction than of fact; therefore we cannot accept what newspapers and radios have told us about Hitler.
Of course, we realize that newspapers have played up the fiction of Hitler but that does not prove his existence. It is well known that many men are greedy and will do anything for money. Newspapers will play up those things which increase their sales. Our experience has shown us countless instances wherein men have deceived others for money; but our experience has never embraced a Hitler. Therefore, it is much more likely that newspapers have perpetuated a fraud than that such a one as Hitler ever existed.
Do you object that not only our newspapers but the papers of Germany have testified to his existence. That is easily accounted for. Nations are composed of men and women. The vanity of men and women is well known. People tell things which will magnify their class, race or nation for the bigger the heroes of their nation the more that they feel that they themselves are elevated. Nations tend to exhalt themselves by building up myths of national heroes. Not only do myths tend to thus exalt them in their own eyes, and in the eyes of other nations, but they are also helpful in bringing pressure to bear on other nations to get them to do the will of your nation. And if you can threaten them with persons like Hitler, they will fall the more readily through fear of your nation.
Perhaps you saw a picture of Hitler. All that we need to say is that pictures may not lie but liars will take pictures and label them in such a way as to suit their purposes. How do you know that the picture which you saw was Hitler? Even the Germans admitted that he had a double. And even if it was someone called Hitler, how could you prove that the one in the picture had done all the amazing things with the Germans and with Europe which they have claimed that he did?
Or did you see some reporter who claimed to have met Hitler? Perhaps he was deceived by being ushered into the presence of someone whom they called Hitler? But how could he prove that the person whom he had met had done all of the things attributed to Hitler? It could be that the censors would not let the reporter send any other menage through. Furthermore, one must not overlook the possibility that, since liars are more common than even the myths of such persons as Hitler, it is more likely that the reporter is lying in order to have a good story with which to make money
We also point out that there are some books which do not mention Hitler and which were written in Germany during the time when the myths tell us of Hitler's existence. Surely if Hitler had lived, he would have been such an amazing character that no author would have dared to have left him unmentioned. Surely all writers would have known of his existence and they would have mentioned it. Since all do not mention it, that is sufficient proof that he did not exist.
Word has come through the newspapers that Hitler is dead. Surely this confirms us in our belief that he was never anything but a myth by means of which the German people tried to magnify the glory of their own nation. As soon as people really began to try to find out whether there was a Hitler, in order to bring him to trial, it was a most convenient thing to say that he was dead. Our suspicion is strengthened in that they also say that his body has disappeared! Surely we can all see through such a hoax.
Perhaps the reader is ready to say that this is sheer mockery; that there was a Hitler and that he was one of the causes of the death of many fine people. That is all true. But we ask the reader to remember what a mockery it is to claim that Jesus Christ, who has saved millions, never existed or that he is the product of a group of stories which grew up around a mere man. The absurdities which we have suggested with reference to Hitler are not only absurdities with reference to the conclusions themselves, but also absurdities which are bound up in the logic which some have used to deny the claims of Christ, and to reach such conclusions.
If the reader is interested in an extensive treatment of the "existence" of another figure of history, Napoleon, according to the principles of Hume, let him consult Richard Whately's Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Bonaparte.