Miracles: Can a Reasonable Person Believe Them?

"Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?" John 11:40

John 11:40
Since David Hume, skeptics have argued that no testimony could ever make a miracle believable: the laws of nature are so firmly established that any report of their violation is more likely mistaken than true. Is this reasoning sound? Or does it quietly assume the very thing in question — that miracles cannot happen — and so decide the case before the evidence is heard?
I invite your engagement with me on these questions. You may leave comments below, but please be sure to read our policy on commenting before doing so.

Skeptic View

The skeptic follows Hume: a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, and those laws rest on the uniform experience of mankind. Against such uniform experience stands only human testimony, which is often mistaken, exaggerated, or fraudulent. Therefore it is always more rational to believe that the witness erred than that the law of nature was broken. Reports of miracles multiply in every religion and cancel each other out; the age of the “miraculous” is simply the age before we understood the natural causes.

Christian View

Hume's argument, examined closely, begs the question. To say that “uniform experience” stands against miracles assumes that all reports of miracles are false — which is exactly what is to be proved. If God exists — the very Author of nature's laws — there is nothing incoherent in his acting within his own creation; a miracle is not a violation but a signature. The real question is not whether miracles are possible but whether any have actually occurred; and there the evidence, above all for the Resurrection, asks to be weighed rather than dismissed in advance.

Summary

The blanket claim that miracles are impossible is not a finding of science but an assumption smuggled in beforehand. If there is a God, miracles are possible; whether any have happened is a question of evidence, to be examined case by case. To rule them out before looking is not skepticism but prejudice.