The Case for the Miraculous According to Lewis

Humans do not like the improbable and as miracles are considered wildly absurd, it may seem natural to refrain from believing in them. According to Hume, miracles are the most improbable of all explanations for any given event. In Miracles, C.S. Lewis directly opposes the points made by Hume in his work, An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. Lewis argues that Hume’s work is severely faulty and that miracles are worth believing in despite the initial layer of absurdity and seeming improbability. He proves that miracles are valuable by pointing out the illegitimacy of Hume’s argument, relating the issue of uniformity to proof of God’s role in the world, and by examining the implications of God’s involvement upon uniformity and miracles.

The first point Lewis makes to underline the value of believing in miracles is that the main defense for not believing in them is a weak one. Lewis pinpoints the central characteristic of Hume’s disagreement with miracles as their inconsistency with the uniformity of nature. He explains that it is true that individuals are far more likely to believe even the most outrageous natural explanation than believe that a miracle could have occurred, and the reason why people tend to think this way is evidenced in Hume’s argument that cause and effect must explain all things (121). Hume would say that experience with cause and effect is the best way to understand things in the world while still remaining skeptical. Lewis attacks the argument Hume makes that improbability renders miracles impossible by emphasizing that all things were once improbable until they happened. The stance he takes on this debate goes directly against the case for the idea of uniformity which is based on the concept of a given cause producing the same effect every time in a way that does not account for irregularities. The theory of uniformity leaves no room for miracles to exist from this perspective. Lewis, however, acknowledges that the use of this argument is pointless as it argues in a circle and says “unfortunately we know the experience against [miracles] to be uniform only if we know that all the reports of them are false”(123). He goes on to finish the line of circular reasoning by describing how the only way to know that all reports of such miracles are false is to know already that miracles have not happened and therefore could never happen. Lewis’ look at the judgement that solidified Hume’s stance and discrediting it, reinstates the capacity to believe in at least the possibility, if not the probability, of miracles. 

Lewis also asserts that the argument of assuming the uniformity of nature not only discredits itself in regards to miracles, but also proves the necessity of a Creator who intelligently designed the uniformity found in nature. Lewis says that there are three reasons man believes in the uniformity of nature; the first two are that men are creatures of habit and men feel the need to plan their actions and thus need something to plan according to. The third and most important reason Lewis identifies is that even in science, there are some things that we cherish and hold to be true out of our instinct for the fitness of things (125-126). Lewis states that humanity is incapable of accepting a universe that is not well-ordered, that is why science exists- to find the order in what at first appears irregular. The disdain for an irregular world, Lewis traces to and says is “derived from Nature’s Creator and ours” (127). The implications of Lewis’ discussion on God’s relation to uniformity suggest that God is the creator, sustainer, and designer of the uniform world in a way that can only be described as supernatural and therefore miraculous.

Not only does Lewis use Hume’s insistence on uniformity as a means of proving the necessary existence of God, he masterfully uses that to justify believing in the miraculous. He presents the idea that when humans admit God, there is “no security against” that admission being sufficient evidence for one to also admit miracles (128). Lewis continues in explaining the bargain one makes in accepting both God and miracles for their connection. The bargain, as Lewis writes it, is that in acknowledging God and with God the existence of “a few miracles,” one can take assurance in their “faith in uniformity as regards to the overwhelming majority of events” (128). In the assertion of this bargain, a clear picture of the relationship between God, uniformity, and miracles is painted. To believe in uniformity suggests a belief in the God who creatively and intelligently ordered that uniformity of nature. The belief in a God who supersedes the bounds of human understanding can from there be assumed to have the ability to suspend the rules of uniformity that He created in order to allow miracles. Lewis points out that Hume’s position that uniformity disproves miracles could not be more incorrect because the designed uniformity actually proves the possibility of miracles. He also posits that “theology offers you a working arrangement” where the significance of a unified belief in these three elements accounts for irregularities that are inescapable, and it “leaves the scientist free to continue his experiments and the Christian to continue his prayers” (128). 

In Miracles, C.S. Lewis counters the arguments made in the work of David Hume expertly. Lewis deconstructs Hume’s theory that believing in the uniformity of nature and believing in miracles are mutually exclusive, and he proves that the basis for this argument is circular and invalid. He also justifies a belief in the miraculous by showing how uniformity is, in fact, a case for God and as such is a case for the existence of the unexplainable- miracles. In the combination of these ideas, Lewis demonstrates why miracles, although seemingly absurd and improbable to the highest degree, are justifiable to put one’s faith in.