Hume on miracles and the Lourdes phenomenon Alexandru Anghel

More documents

Recommendations

Info

From the 67 cases of “confirmed” miracles, I selected the 63rd and the most documented case, that of Vittorio Micheli 11 . Micheli, a soldier in the Alpine Corps, entered a military hospital on April 16, 1962, accusing a strong pain due to a large mass on his buttock that immobilized him. He was X-rayed two times, the second investigation (which was two months apart from the first one) revealing a severe deterioration of the hip area. The bone structure there had been eaten away by cancer. As things got worse, on May 24, 1963, Micheli decided to visit Lourdes as a last resort, and after a month he reported that he felt much better and that the pain subsided. After its usual investigation, the Lourdes Medical Bureau said: A remarkable reconstruction of the iliac bone and cotyloid cavity has taken place. The stereotypes [X-rays] made in 1964, 1965, 1968, 1969 confirm categorically and without doubt that an unforeseen and even overwhelming bone reconstruction has taken place of a type unknown in the annals of world medicine. We ourselves ... have never encountered a single spontaneous bone reconstruction of such a nature (Randi, 1989:25). On May 26, 1976, the case of Vittorio Micheli was officially recognized as miracle No. 63 at the shrine of Loudres. His medical dossier has been published and was submitted to a different group of doctors who were incredulous regarding the medical treatment Micheli was reported to have received. This matter sheds doubt with regard to the application of procedures by the Medical Bureau. Further, James Randi, who investigated this case closely, notes that a case virtually identical to Micheli’s was reported in 1978 in the Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica, which reads as follows: Spontaneous regression of a malignant primary bone tumour. A histologically confirmed malignant, primary bone tumour in the [left] pelvis, presumably an osteosarcoma, underwent spontaneous regression. The large tumour was inoperable and gave rise to severe pain as well as difficulty in walking. After 2 years of progression, with increasing destruction of the pelvic bones, the clinical and radiological condition improved spontaneously, and at present the patient is alive, almost symptom-free, after 6 years follow-up (Randi, 1989:28). In both instances, no medical treatment was reported, the recovery took place in the same way, and the results were the same – with the exception that in the second case no claim was made of a miracle occurring. 11 See Marnham, 1980 and Randi, 1989.
3. Case assessment In order to be able to evaluate the case referred to above, we have to determine the exact “tools” we will derive from <strong>Hume</strong>’s argument. First, we have to establish if the testimony amounts to a proof or a probability, to see what degree of certainty it presupposes 12 , and also to establish the nature of the event reported; second, we have to assess the quality of the reports and the credibility of the witnesses. And, in turn, these two steps should be guided by two crucial principles: (1) A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature and (2) 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 endeavours to establish. Considering the criteria established above, we can see now if <strong>Hume</strong>’s argument will accept as fact the “confirmed” miracle No. 63 discussed in the second section of this article. The investigation is structured into questions. (a) Is the testimony concerning Micheli’s alleged miraculous cure a proof or a probability of the existence of a miraculous event? According to <strong>Hume</strong>, the ultimate standard, by which we determine all disputes . . . is always derived from experience and observation” 13 . If we take our personal experience and observation as a criterion, we will see that the event is certainly not common, and we can consider it truly exceptional. So the event might be considered a “prodigy”. This a priori aspect of <strong>Hume</strong>’s assumes that our evidence for the laws of nature is based not on testimony but on personal experience. But, as I said above, this is impossible, since we don’t learn everything by ourselves, but we gather information from the testimony of others. In the case in point, the testimony regarding a similar event comes from the Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica, which raises the probability that the event is a natural occurring phenomenon, not a “violation of the laws of nature”. (b) Were the reports accurate and the witnesses credible and unbiased? There is the possibility that the report concerning Micheli’s miraculous cure is a fraud or that it has a vitiated procedure. Further, the alleged miracle(s) reported may be due to a religious 12 This should be connected with “the maxim” cited above which <strong>Hume</strong> says we employ: “that the objects, of which we have no experience, resemble those, of which we have; that what we have found to be most usual is always most probable; and that 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” (<strong>Hume</strong>, [1748]2007:117). 13 <strong>Hume</strong>, [1748]2007:112.
Page 1 and 2: Abstract Hume on m
Page 3 and 4: The Oxford English Dictionary defin
Page 5 and 6: others that if we throw ourselves o
Page 7 and 8: so, must be contradicted by a gener
Page 9 and 10: that the Old Testament authors are
Page 11: (1) A person whose health is dramat
Page 15: Press. Bibliography BAILEY, Nathan

Hume on miracles and the Lourdes phenomenon Alexandru Anghel

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?