Short answer
No. Science finds the regular way nature runs. No experiment can show that nature's Maker can never act in an unusual way. The idea that miracles cannot happen is a philosophical starting point, not a scientific result. The best-known case against miracles, made by David Hume in 1748, is about evidence. He said experience is uniform against miracles, so no report of one should be believed. But experience counts as uniform only if every report has already been judged false, and that assumes the answer. In Islam, God (﷾) sustains the regular order of nature, and that order is His custom. A miracle is a rare sign, given by His permission with a message, so science loses nothing. Islam's chief sign is not a wonder known only from reports. It is a book anyone can examine today, and it challenges anyone to produce its like.
Full explanation
What science shows, and what it cannot
Science studies how nature behaves, and it finds a deep regularity. Water boils at a set heat for a given pressure, and in the normal course the dead do not return. A law of nature says what happens when nothing outside the system acts. When you lift a stone, gravity is not broken: another cause has joined in. A miracle, as Islam means it, is not nature breaking itself. It is nature's Maker acting in an unusual way, by His own choice. No experiment can show that this never happens. Experiments test the regular pattern, not whether its Maker ever departs from it. The belief that nature is all there is comes from philosophy, not from a laboratory.
Surveys the debate on miracles. Defines a miracle, at a first and very rough approximation, as an event that natural causes alone cannot explain. Notes that the argument that a miracle is a contradiction, because laws cannot be broken, is Voltaire's, sometimes wrongly credited to Hume. Quotes Hume's maxim that no testimony can establish a miracle unless its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact. Notes that if laws of nature hold only when all else is equal, a reported exception may show that something else acted, not that the law is false. Reports the reply of Richard Price, one of Hume's early critics (Four Dissertations, first published 1767, cited from the 4th edition, 1777): a miracle is different from experience rather than contrary to it. Its authors judge a wild overstatement Hume's premise that the case from experience against a miracle is as strong as any argument from experience could be. Reports Christine Overall's claim (1985) that disputes over miracles hold back science, and judges it arguably false, since such disputes have not noticeably slowed science. Records that the debate goes on: John Earman (2000) calls Part 1 of Hume's essay an "abject failure", while Robert Fogelin and Peter Millican defend Hume.
Hume's argument, stated fairly
The Scottish philosopher David Hume made the most famous case against miracles, in 1748. He defined a miracle as a break in the laws of nature. He argued that our experience of those laws is firm and unvarying. So, he wrote, there is "a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle". A report of a miracle could win only if its being false would be more miraculous still. Hume did not say miracles are logically impossible. The argument that laws cannot be broken, so a miracle is a contradiction, is Voltaire's. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes that it is sometimes wrongly credited to Hume. Hume even allowed that strong enough testimony could prove eight days of darkness over the whole earth. His limit was narrower: no miracle could be proved so as to found a religion. If a wonder were tied to a new religion, he wrote, sensible people should reject it without further examination.
“There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle”
Says his limit is that a miracle can never be proved so as to be the foundation of a system of religion. Otherwise, he grants, there may be violations of the usual course of nature that human testimony can prove, though perhaps none can be found in all the records of history. His example is total darkness over the whole earth for eight days from 1 January 1600, which philosophers ought then to accept as certain. But he would not believe a report that Queen Elizabeth died and returned to rule a month later. And if such a miracle were ascribed to a new system of religion, he says, that alone would be a full proof of a cheat, and people of sense should reject it without further examination.
Surveys the debate on miracles. Defines a miracle, at a first and very rough approximation, as an event that natural causes alone cannot explain. Notes that the argument that a miracle is a contradiction, because laws cannot be broken, is Voltaire's, sometimes wrongly credited to Hume. Quotes Hume's maxim that no testimony can establish a miracle unless its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact. Notes that if laws of nature hold only when all else is equal, a reported exception may show that something else acted, not that the law is false. Reports the reply of Richard Price, one of Hume's early critics (Four Dissertations, first published 1767, cited from the 4th edition, 1777): a miracle is different from experience rather than contrary to it. Its authors judge a wild overstatement Hume's premise that the case from experience against a miracle is as strong as any argument from experience could be. Reports Christine Overall's claim (1985) that disputes over miracles hold back science, and judges it arguably false, since such disputes have not noticeably slowed science. Records that the debate goes on: John Earman (2000) calls Part 1 of Hume's essay an "abject failure", while Robert Fogelin and Peter Millican defend Hume.
Why "uniform experience" assumes the answer
Hume's own experience, and his readers', covers only a small part of history. To call all experience uniform against miracles, he must first count every report of one as false. But whether those reports are false is the very question. So the argument assumes what it sets out to prove. Hume's early critics objected to this step. The philosopher Richard Price replied that a miracle is different from experience rather than contrary to it. No one watched every place in every age and saw that nothing happened. A Humean may answer that Hume only weighs the evidence: the case for nature's laws is vast, and any witness can err. But how much a report of God (﷾) acting should weigh depends on whether there is a God who acts for a purpose. Weighing it as if there were none assumes the answer again. Hume replied that we know God's (﷾) ways only from the usual course of nature. But a God who sends messengers with a message would be expected to confirm them, so such a sign is not a random break. Whether God (﷾) exists has its own evidence, set out in the related pages. Hume even said a wonder tied to a religion should be rejected without further examination. That is judging a report before looking at it. The debate is still open among philosophers. The philosopher of science John Earman (2000) called the first part of Hume's essay an "abject failure", while others defend it.
“There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle”
Says his limit is that a miracle can never be proved so as to be the foundation of a system of religion. Otherwise, he grants, there may be violations of the usual course of nature that human testimony can prove, though perhaps none can be found in all the records of history. His example is total darkness over the whole earth for eight days from 1 January 1600, which philosophers ought then to accept as certain. But he would not believe a report that Queen Elizabeth died and returned to rule a month later. And if such a miracle were ascribed to a new system of religion, he says, that alone would be a full proof of a cheat, and people of sense should reject it without further examination.
Surveys the debate on miracles. Defines a miracle, at a first and very rough approximation, as an event that natural causes alone cannot explain. Notes that the argument that a miracle is a contradiction, because laws cannot be broken, is Voltaire's, sometimes wrongly credited to Hume. Quotes Hume's maxim that no testimony can establish a miracle unless its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact. Notes that if laws of nature hold only when all else is equal, a reported exception may show that something else acted, not that the law is false. Reports the reply of Richard Price, one of Hume's early critics (Four Dissertations, first published 1767, cited from the 4th edition, 1777): a miracle is different from experience rather than contrary to it. Its authors judge a wild overstatement Hume's premise that the case from experience against a miracle is as strong as any argument from experience could be. Reports Christine Overall's claim (1985) that disputes over miracles hold back science, and judges it arguably false, since such disputes have not noticeably slowed science. Records that the debate goes on: John Earman (2000) calls Part 1 of Hume's essay an "abject failure", while Robert Fogelin and Peter Millican defend Hume.
Rare signs do not make science impossible
Some fear that if God (﷾) can act, nature stops being reliable and science stops working. But science needs nature to be regular, not to be all there is. Picture a world whose Maker keeps a steady order and acts outside it rarely, for a purpose. That world is regular, and experiments in it still repeat. A miracle that came every day would no longer stand out as a sign. Its rarity is what lets it carry a message. Many reported wonders are false, as Hume rightly said. That calls for judging each report by its evidence. It does not show that every report must be false.
Surveys the debate on miracles. Defines a miracle, at a first and very rough approximation, as an event that natural causes alone cannot explain. Notes that the argument that a miracle is a contradiction, because laws cannot be broken, is Voltaire's, sometimes wrongly credited to Hume. Quotes Hume's maxim that no testimony can establish a miracle unless its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact. Notes that if laws of nature hold only when all else is equal, a reported exception may show that something else acted, not that the law is false. Reports the reply of Richard Price, one of Hume's early critics (Four Dissertations, first published 1767, cited from the 4th edition, 1777): a miracle is different from experience rather than contrary to it. Its authors judge a wild overstatement Hume's premise that the case from experience against a miracle is as strong as any argument from experience could be. Reports Christine Overall's claim (1985) that disputes over miracles hold back science, and judges it arguably false, since such disputes have not noticeably slowed science. Records that the debate goes on: John Earman (2000) calls Part 1 of Hume's essay an "abject failure", while Robert Fogelin and Peter Millican defend Hume.
Gives three reasons why reports of miracles fall short. No miracle in history is attested by enough educated and honest witnesses, in a public enough place. The love of surprise and wonder makes people quick to believe and repeat such stories. And such stories abound chiefly among ignorant peoples, or peoples who received them from such ancestors.
Islam's answer: the order of nature and the miracles are both signs
The Qur'an calls the regular order of nature a sign. It points to the heavens and the earth, night following day, the rain and the winds as "Signs for a people that are wise" (2:164). It uses the same word, aya, for the rare signs given to prophets. Moses was given nine clear signs (17:101). Jesus healed those born blind and the lepers and raised the dead, each time by Allah's (﷾) permission (3:49; 5:110). The Qur'an says that no messenger could bring a sign except as Allah (﷾) permitted (13:38). So in Islam a miracle is never nature failing. Nature never runs on its own: "It is Allah Who sustains the heavens and the earth" (35:41). Its regular order is His custom, the usual course He has set. A miracle is His acting otherwise, rarely and to confirm His messenger. Scholars define it as something that breaks the usual course of things. Science studies the regular order, and loses nothing.
“Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the night and the day; in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which Allah Sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds, and the clouds which they Trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth;- (Here) indeed are Signs for a people that are wise.”
“To Moses We did give Nine Clear Signs: As the Children of Israel: when he came to them, Pharaoh said to him: "O Moses! I consider thee, indeed, to have been worked upon by sorcery!”
“"And (appoint him) a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message): "'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah's leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by Allah's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe;”
“Then will Allah say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel and behold! thou makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave, and thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave. And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: 'This is nothing but evident magic.'”
“We did send messengers before thee, and appointed for them wives and children: and it was never the part of a messenger to bring a sign except as Allah permitted (or commanded). For each period is a Book (revealed).”
“It is Allah Who sustains the heavens and the earth, lest they cease (to function): and if they should fail, there is none - not one - can sustain them thereafter: Verily He is Most Forbearing, Oft-Forgiving.”
Defines a miracle, as scholars do, as something that breaks the usual course of things (khariq li-l-'ada), which Allah brings about at the hands of a messenger as decisive proof that he is a prophet. Answers those who say the Prophet (ﷺ) had no miracle but the Qur'an: his miracles are established by mass transmission, taken together and in many cases one by one, and Muslims should believe in the miracles reported in the authentic hadith.
Islam's answer to Hume's "rival miracles"
In Part II of the same essay Hume gave a fourth reason. In religion, he said, whatever differs is opposed. So every religion's miracles count against all the others, and their witnesses cancel out. He gave Islam as an example, and spoke of its early witnesses with contempt, as if Islam rested on a few of them. It does not. Its chief sign is a book anyone can examine today, and the Prophet's (ﷺ) other miracles are many and widely reported. Hume examined no Islamic source there, and scorn for a people is not evidence against what they saw. His rule does not fit Islam either. Islam affirms the signs of Moses and Jesus, so for Islam they confirm one message rather than compete. Hume's rule that whatever differs is opposed is also too quick. When reports clash, that is a reason to weigh them, as historians weigh rival accounts, not to reject them all. Islam need not deny every wonder reported elsewhere, or accept them all: each report is judged by its evidence.
Gives a fourth reason against reported miracles. In religion, whatever differs is opposed, so the miracles of each religion count against all the others and their witnesses cancel out. He names the religions of ancient Rome, Turkey (that is, Islam), Siam and China. He gives Islam's miracles as an example, and speaks of their early Arab witnesses with contempt.
Defines a miracle, as scholars do, as something that breaks the usual course of things (khariq li-l-'ada), which Allah brings about at the hands of a messenger as decisive proof that he is a prophet. Answers those who say the Prophet (ﷺ) had no miracle but the Qur'an: his miracles are established by mass transmission, taken together and in many cases one by one, and Muslims should believe in the miracles reported in the authentic hadith.
“To Moses We did give Nine Clear Signs: As the Children of Israel: when he came to them, Pharaoh said to him: "O Moses! I consider thee, indeed, to have been worked upon by sorcery!”
“"And (appoint him) a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message): "'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah's leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by Allah's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe;”
“Then will Allah say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel and behold! thou makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave, and thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave. And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: 'This is nothing but evident magic.'”
Islam's answer: its chief sign is a book you can examine now
Hume's argument is about testimony, reports from the past that we must trust or doubt. Islam's chief sign is of another kind. The Prophet (ﷺ) said that every prophet was given signs that led people to believe. What he himself had been given was the revelation from Allah (Bukhari 4981). Muslims hold that this is his greatest and lasting sign, among the others he was given. When opponents demanded wonders on their own terms, the Qur'an answered that signs are with Allah (﷾), and asked whether the Book was not enough (29:50-51). The Qur'an challenges anyone in doubt to produce a single chapter like it (2:23). It says that mankind and jinn (unseen beings) together could not produce its like (17:88). The Book itself is not a report: anyone can read it today, and anyone who masters Arabic can take up the challenge. Its first hearers, masters of Arabic poetry, never met it, and the page on the Qur'an's challenge sets out that record. The reports of the Prophet's (ﷺ) other miracles are set out on a separate page. Islam does not ask anyone to start from stories of wonders. It offers reasons and a Book, and a whole way of life built on them.
Abu Hurayra reports that the Prophet (ﷺ) said every prophet was given signs that led people to believe, but what he himself had been given was the revelation Allah sent to him, and so he hoped to have the most followers on the Day of Resurrection.
Defines a miracle, as scholars do, as something that breaks the usual course of things (khariq li-l-'ada), which Allah brings about at the hands of a messenger as decisive proof that he is a prophet. Answers those who say the Prophet (ﷺ) had no miracle but the Qur'an: his miracles are established by mass transmission, taken together and in many cases one by one, and Muslims should believe in the miracles reported in the authentic hadith.
“Say: "The signs are indeed with Allah: and I am indeed a clear Warner." And is it not enough for them that we have sent down to thee the Book which is rehearsed to them? Verily, in it is Mercy and a Reminder to those who believe.”
“And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true.”
“Say: "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.”
The replies answered
David Hume, An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, Section X, 'Of Miracles', Part I, paragraph 90 (first published 1748 as Philosophical Essays concerning Human Understanding; Selby-Bigge ed., 1902)
“There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle”
Cited for
Our experience of the laws of nature is uniform. That is a full proof against any miracle, and no report can outweigh it.
The response
Experience is uniform only if every report of a miracle is counted false first, and that is the question. Richard Price, one of Hume's early critics, replied that a miracle differs from experience rather than contradicting it. Hume himself said that a wonder tied to a religion should be rejected without further examination, which is judging a report before weighing it.
Where it lands — The appeal to uniform experience assumes its answer, so it cannot settle whether a miracle ever happened.
Hume, Enquiry, Section X, Part II
Gives a fourth reason against reported miracles. In religion, whatever differs is opposed, so the miracles of each religion count against all the others and their witnesses cancel out. He names the religions of ancient Rome, Turkey (that is, Islam), Siam and China. He gives Islam's miracles as an example, and speaks of their early Arab witnesses with contempt.
Cited for
Belief in Islam's miracles rests on a few early witnesses, and every other religion's witnesses contradict it.
The response
Islam does not rest on a few witnesses. Its chief sign is a book anyone can examine today: the Prophet (ﷺ) said that what he had been given was the revelation (Bukhari 4981). Muslims hold that it is the greatest of his signs, and his other miracles are many and widely reported. Islam affirms the signs of Moses and Jesus, so for Islam they confirm one message rather than compete. Where reports really clash, that calls for weighing them, as historians weigh rival accounts, not for rejecting them all.
Where it lands — Hume's cancelling-out does not fit Islam, and its chief sign does not depend on trusting reports of a wonder.
Qur'an 17:88 — Surat al-Isra (The Night Journey), verse 88
“Say: "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.”
Cited for
A book cannot be a miracle. Whether a text can be matched is a matter of taste.
The response
The challenge is not a contest of taste. It names a form: a chapter of the Qur'an's own kind. Their finest judge of language, al-Walid ibn al-Mughira, could not class it as poetry or as soothsaying. The text is on the page today, and anyone who reads Arabic can compare a rival with it. The page on the Qur'an's challenge sets out the test, its judges and the attempts made.
Where it lands — The challenge names a form that can be tested, and the text is open to that test today.
Qur'an 13:38 — Surat al-Ra'd (The Thunder), verse 38
“We did send messengers before thee, and appointed for them wives and children: and it was never the part of a messenger to bring a sign except as Allah permitted (or commanded). For each period is a Book (revealed).”
Cited for
If miracles were real, they would happen now, where we could test them.
The response
Islam teaches that signs came with messengers, and only as Allah (﷾) permitted (13:38). Each was given for a purpose, so a sign on demand would be a show, not a sign. To those who demanded signs, the Qur'an answers that the Book is enough (29:50-51). That sign is still here, and anyone can examine it now.
Where it lands — Islam never promised miracles on demand, and the sign it offers today can be examined by anyone.
Perspectives
Naturalist and Humean: no miracle can be believed
Nature follows fixed laws, known from uniform experience. A miracle would break them, so the evidence against any miracle always outweighs the reports for it. The miracle reports of rival religions also cancel one another out.
Science has shown that the laws of nature never fail, so miracles cannot happen.
Rebuttal
Science finds the regular way nature runs. It cannot show that nature's Maker can never act in an unusual way. That is a philosophical starting point, not the result of any experiment.
Every time science has looked, the cause has turned out to be natural. That record is good evidence that nature is all there is.
Rebuttal
Science looks for regular causes, so regular causes are what it finds. In Islam the regular order is the way God (﷾) made the world run, so each finding costs Islam nothing. A record of regular causes cannot show there is never a rare act with a purpose. Nor does it explain why anything exists at all.
Uniform experience is a full proof against any miracle, so no report of one should be believed.
Rebuttal
Experience is uniform only if every miracle report is counted false in advance, which assumes the answer. Weighing a report as if there were no God to act also assumes the answer. Hume even said a wonder tied to a religion should be rejected without examination. That is judging before looking.
Miracle stories come from love of wonder and from ignorant ages, and no miracle has enough good witnesses.
Rebuttal
Many wonder stories are false, so each report must be judged by its evidence. That does not make every report false. Islam's case does not rest on such stories.
In religion whatever differs is opposed, so the miracles of rival religions, Islam's included, cancel each other out.
Rebuttal
Islam affirms the signs of Moses and Jesus, so for Islam they back one message. Clashing reports call for weighing, not for rejecting them all. And Islam's chief sign is not a reported wonder but a book anyone can examine today.
If God can step into nature, nature is unreliable and science becomes impossible.
Rebuttal
Science needs nature to be regular, not to be all there is. A world whose Maker acts rarely and for a purpose is still regular, so experiments still repeat. In Islam the steady order is the norm God (﷾) set, and miracles are rare signs given with a message.
Science and miracles answer different questions
Science describes the regular way nature runs. Whether its Maker ever acts otherwise is a question science cannot settle, and Hume's case against miracle reports assumes its own answer.
A law of nature describes nature's regular pattern, so it cannot rule out its Maker acting otherwise.
Experience is uniform against miracles only if every report of one is first counted false. But that is the very point in question.
Hume allowed that testimony could prove an extraordinary event. Yet he said a wonder tied to a religion should be rejected without examination.
Rare signs leave nature regular, so science is not threatened by them.
The Islamic perspective
Allah (﷾) sustains the order of nature, which is a sign and His custom. Miracles are rare signs He gave His messengers, by His permission. Islam's chief sign is the Qur'an, open to anyone today.
The Qur'an calls the regular order of nature a sign for people who think.
The Qur'an says it is Allah (﷾) who sustains the heavens and the earth.
The Qur'an says no messenger could bring a sign except as Allah (﷾) permitted.
The Qur'an affirms the signs of Moses and Jesus, given by Allah's (﷾) permission.
The Prophet (ﷺ) said earlier prophets were given signs that led people to believe, and what he had been given was the revelation. Muslims hold this is his greatest sign, not his only one.
The Qur'an challenges anyone in doubt to produce a chapter like it. The test is open today to anyone who reads Arabic.