Meaning: David Hume, an influential Scottish philosopher, historian, and economist of the 18th century, made this statement in his work "Of Miracles," which was part of his larger philosophical work "An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding." In this quote, Hume is expressing skepticism about the existence of miracles and the ability of historical accounts to provide unquestionable evidence for them.

Hume's position on miracles is based on his empirical and skeptical approach to knowledge. He argues that a miracle is, by definition, a violation of the laws of nature, and as such, it goes against the regular and uniform experience upon which our understanding of the world is based. He contends that in order to accept a miracle as a historical fact, the evidence supporting it would need to be of such extraordinary quality that it would outweigh the improbability of the event itself.

Hume's skepticism about miracles is underpinned by his view of human nature and the limitations of human understanding. He asserts that people are prone to superstition, credulity, and the influence of religious beliefs, which can lead them to accept extraordinary claims without sufficient evidence. Furthermore, Hume argues that even individuals of "good sense, education, and learning" are not immune to delusion, as their judgment can be clouded by biases, cultural influences, and social pressures.

In the context of the quote, Hume is highlighting the challenge of finding historical accounts of miracles that are supported by a sufficiently large and reputable number of witnesses. He suggests that no matter how educated or rational the witnesses may be, their testimonies are not immune to the potential for delusion or error. Hume's emphasis on the need for a "sufficient number of men" with "unquestioned good sense, education, and learning" reflects his rigorous standard for evaluating the credibility of miracle reports.

Hume's argument against the credibility of miracle testimonies has provoked significant debate and discussion among philosophers, theologians, and historians. Critics of Hume's position have raised objections to his strict criteria for assessing historical evidence and have proposed alternative interpretations of the nature of miracles and the reliability of testimony.

From a historical and philosophical perspective, Hume's skepticism about miracles has contributed to the ongoing dialogue about the intersection of faith, reason, and the interpretation of historical events. His critique challenges the uncritical acceptance of extraordinary claims and encourages a critical examination of the evidence and reasoning behind such assertions.

In conclusion, David Hume's quote reflects his skeptical stance on the credibility of miracle testimonies in history. His emphasis on the limitations of human perception and the potential for delusion underscores the need for a rigorous and critical approach to evaluating extraordinary claims. While his position has been a subject of controversy and debate, it has also served as a catalyst for deeper reflections on the nature of evidence, belief, and historical inquiry.