Philosophy miracles

Richard Swinburne on miracles

Offers a defence of miracles and starts by considering what we mean by the term 'natural laws'. 1. All laws are generalisations 2. All natural laws are 'corrigible' (can be changed) States that miracles are "an occurrence of an non-repeatable counter instance of the law of nature". This means that an event which doesn't match the laws of nature as we know them but also doesn't provide enough evidence to prove the law inaccurate. Laws of nature are good generalisations but they don't remove the possibility of miracles.

Maurice Wiles on miracles

Rejects the idea of God acting in the world and violating the laws of nature (rejects miracles). 1. If miracles are violations of the laws of nature they have to occur infrequently to uphold the laws of nature 2. The pattern of occurrence of miracles appears strange 3. Large amounts of evil in the world that aren't prevented by God raised questions about God's omnipotence and goodness. Argues against the view of God which suggests that God acts in the world and is good and yet allows events such the Holocaust to take place. God acting in the world in this way leads to the questions about miracles showing God to be arbitrary and bias. The whole universe is a single creative act and as a consequence the whole universe reveals God to people and God's activity is sustaining every part of the universe

How do we dissever natural laws: Popper

1st Stage: make n observation and form a hypothesis 2nd Stage: retain hypothesis unless it is falsified by observation -Natural laws are our best description of what we thing so far

Swinburne's response to Hick

Natural laws can not adequately cover every single possible happening everywhere- they give us an generally accurate picture of what we should expect to happen in a given situation. When these are violated we can consider these miraculous as it is totally contradictory to our past experiences and it would not be expected to happen again.

Criticism's of Hume: Hume has missed the point of a miracle

A miracle's purpose is to reveal God. A miracle is not just an exception to the normal course of nature, but is an event with special significance and reason behind it. The reason is the revelation of God Rebuttal: This is too subjective the purpose of a miracle story within a religion is to underlie God's activity in the world, support the development of faith and confirm what else is said in scripture. If we accept this all to be subjective then there is no objective truth in religion which many theists would reject

Criticism of Hick's response to miracles

- One day in the future it may be possible to be able to communicate telepathically. This could be possible just because it hasn't been seen in past experiences, doesn't mean it won't be possible in the future through the use of microchips or something similar. The natural laws can then be adapted retrospectively. -One day in the future you boil water and it freezes. This is different to the first example because it would be unreasonable to retrospectively adapt the natural law in this instance. Past experience tells us this shouldn't happen and so in this instance we can safely say a natural law has been broken.

Biblical examples of miracles

-Feeding of the 5000 -Healing Jairus' daughter -Parting of the Red sea -40 days in the desert

How does Swinburne say we should collect evidence of a miracle

1. Memories of our experiences (principle of credulity) 2. Testimony by others (principle of testimony) 3. Physical traits of the event such as medical evidence 4. Understanding of modern science and that is thought to be impossible or high improbable. Goes on to say that we can use the four methods of evidence collection to allow us to deduce whether a miracle has taken place or not.

How do we discover natural laws: Hume

1st Stage: make lots of repeated observations 2nd Stage: if the repeated observations corroborate then you have a natural law -Natural laws are universal and rigid therefore miracles are highly improbable

Hume's inductive problem

Believes there are laws of nature because of empirical observations. Argues inductively from this that they are universal and can not be broken. But inductive arguments only establish probability and not certainty. Can't say that the natural laws are universal and can't be broken. New empirical evidence might suggest they operate differently to how to currently think.

Consequences of Popper: For science to be informative it has to be improbable

Consider two weather forecasts 1. It will rain somewhere, sometime 2. It will rain in Brighton at 9am tomorrow The second is far more informative than the first as it is more likely to be wrong. If we seek high probability we will find ourselves with poor, practically worthless sciences

Hick's response to miracles

Defines natural laws as "generalisations, formulated retrospectively to cover whatever has in fact happened" If a natural law defines the law of nature how could we use the above definition to declare a priori miracles can never occur. Events which are thought to have been a miracles can be re-understood to "explain them away" with new information. We can widen our definitions of natural laws to redefine them when previously witnesses events occur. New events do not break the laws of nature they become part of them

Hume's subsidiary arguments against miracles: There are different claims from different religions

Each religion had its own set of miracle claims however they can't all be true in the same time. "in a matter of religion whatever is different is contrary". Miracles are preformed by a deity (Hume's definition) and so the miracles of other religions can not have happened as it would require the intervention of another deity to break the laws of nature. However there can't be 1+ deities according to religious doctrine. There is also no difference between the quality of evidence of one set of miracles than the other. All miracles claims are build on insufficient evidence

Aquinas on miracles

For an event to be worth of the name miracle it has to be an event which is intrinsically wonderful, not just to one specific person. For example many parents would see the birth of their child as a miracle but others would see it as a normal natural event hence it would not be a miracle. Aquinas also claimed that for an event to be a miracle the cause of it must be completely hidden, in that no-one can properly understand how it occurred

Criticism of Wiles' view: Christian tradition

God acts in the world in a far more direct way than what Wiles suggests. Stories of miracles in the Bible suggest that God acts in the world. Wiles view does not fully reflect the nature of God Rebuttal: To the Bible- Hume says that people who believe are ignorant and barbarous To God's nature- If God is metaphysical then there is not concrete understanding of God's nature

Criticism's of Hume: There are different claims from religions

God may wish to reveal himself in different ways through a variety of religions so that cultural differences are taken into account. Religious pluralism (different deities and religions are just different manifestations of one divine reality) Rebuttal: Surely a more rational way to reveal yourself is through consistence as the differences in religions have caused many problems such as war

Non-biblical examples of miracles

Had TB for the majority of her life and was operated on 7 times because of it. Was taken to Lourdes where after three days she showed obvious signs of improvement- fever disappeared, could walk, talk and eat. Within a year she had made nearly a full recovery. A medical bureau made up of both theists and atheists found "no explanation of this cure... It is beyond the natural laws" Alternatives: -Not an instantaneous cure (could be natural)

Hume's subsidiary arguments against miracles: Humans love talks of the miraculous

Humans love weird and wonderful stories and they have a natural disposition to believe/ accept them even if they are impossible (tabloid gossip) "The passion of surprise and wonder arising from miracles"

Criticism's of Hume: it could be questioned whether reports from ignorant and barbarous nations should be rejected

Hume asserts his case without evidence. We might argue that the veracity of an observations is not determined by the educational level or social status of the witness. We do not prohibit those without A levels from giving evidence in court. Rebuttal: Societies that are not scientifically advanced do not have the required understanding of nature and its workings to claim that it has been broken

Peter Vardy: a moral objection to miracles

If God is all powerful and can intervene in the world then why doesn't he? "A God who intervenes to cure an old man of cancer at Lourdes but doesn't act to save starving millions in Ethiopia...needs.... to face some hard moral questioning"

Hume's subsidiary arguments against miracles: Belief is found primarily in ignorant and barbarous nations

If belief in miracles is found among advanced nations it is because it was handed down from "ignorant and barbarous ancestors". These nations are pre-scientific

Criticism of Hume: Hume does not consider that a miracle might leave evidence that could be seen by many

It is possible that when a miracle happens the effects are there for all to see (e.g. many people seeing a paralysed man walking again). It is not true that all miracles have been exaggerated or invented. Because Hume began from a stand point of belief that no reasonable person would believe in miracles it was inevitable that he would consider those who reported miracles to be ignorant Rebuttal: You can not determine the veracity of the cause by its effects (Bertrand Russell). You need to see the cause and effect together

Criticism of Wiles' view: The Christian God

John Polkinghorne argues that Wiles view of God's actions in the world do not reflect Christian religious understanding of God. Many scientists are also Christians but have not rejected the possibility that God does act in the world

Swinburne's main and subsidiary arguments for allowing us to deduce whether a miracle happened

Main: 1. Accept as many sources as possible 2. The more evidence there is the stronger the probability of it actually happening Subsidiary: 1. The sources should support each other 2. The value places on the evidence should depend on the 'empirical reliability' 3. Avoid rejecting possible relavant pieces of information without good reason

Non-biblical examples of miracles: Margaret and Mary Bierne

Mary claimed to have seen the 'blessed virgin' alongside Joseph, John and an alter with a lamb and a cross. Margaret claimed to have seen a bright light on top of the church where this happened. 13 other people claimed to have seen these visions and others reported a bright light Alternatives: -Group hallucinations -Wishful thinking -Practical joke

Aquinas's third definition of a miracle

Miracles 'done by God which is usually done by nature but done without the workings of natural principles'. An example could be recovering from an illness; this may be expected naturally but happened perhaps more quickly than usual. This may be following someone's prayer and we would call it a miraculous intervention by God. For example when a broken limb heals very quickly.

Aquinas' second definition of a miracle

Miracles 'in which God does something that nature can do but not in that sequence and connection'. This could be the things such as recovering from a terminal illness or paralysis. It is not logically impossible for this to happen but they are not usually expected. Nature can bring about a spontaneous remission or recovery but this is not expected to happen and so if it does it may be attributed to the direct intervention of God. Aquinas gives many examples such as being cured of blindness

Gareth Moore on miracles

Miracles are inexplicable events that believers consider to have religious significance. Moore asks us to consider an injured child at the foot of the mountain, there is a landslide and a boulder begins to roll down the mountain about to crush him. But the boulder stops rolling and hovers 15cm above the child. Many tests are carried out and no cause can be found. Although the event is regarded as a miracle and God is said to have saved the boys life, this does not mean that somebody or something held the boulder up, preventing it from killing the child. It was a miracle because there was no cause for the boulder not to fall on the boy.

Hume's rejection of miracles

Miracles by their definition of being 'violations of the laws of nature" are beyond the realms of reasonable belief. No reasonable person would believe in them because the laws of nature do not change. Sensible people base their beliefs on the basis of evidence- it is more likely to be true than false. In regards to miracles we should weigh up the evidence looking at what is more likely: will the laws of nature have changed or will the miracle have taken place? Our past experience shows us what to base our beliefs on- water does not turn into wine. The whole weight of our past experience bears this out. There is an appeal to the principle of induction- we make scientific judgements based on many instances. The more instances we gather the more probable it is. Miracles by their definition they are highly improbable and thus not worthy of belief. When trying to establish whether or not to believe someone's account of miracle, Hume believes that it is always more probable that either the person is mistaken or they are deliberately deceiving you rather than the miracles actually taking place.

R.F Holland on miracles- Contingency definition

Miracles were something where something which is directly brought about by God but doesn't have to break the laws of nature. They are rare occurrences yet have natural explanations but are given miraculous interpretations. An event does not have to break the laws of nature to be classified as a miracle, it simply has to have a sense of divine purpose and religious significance. They happen by chance. Gives the example of a child falling onto a railway crossing which a train about to come along- there is no way for the train to stop and avoid any collision on the line with another train. The brakes are then applies and it comes to rest a few feet in front of the child. The mother thanks God for the miracle and although comes to find out that there was nothing supernatural about the manner in which the brakes of the train came to be applied (the train driver fainted due to a illness and the train automatically stopped) still believes it was a miracle.

Aquinas' first definition of a miracle

Miracles where 'something is done by God that nature could never do'. This can be considered to be the most traditional approach to defining a miracle- effectively it is breaking a law of nature which contradicts our regular experience about how the world works. Aquinas gave the example of Joshua who made the sun stand still.

Consequences of Popper: High probability does not count in favour of a theory

Take the example of the rising sun. It has risen 'n' billion times. In a million years time it will have risen a further 365million times. But it is not more likely that it will rise then- it is less likely because the sun is much closer to extinction

Hume's subsidiary arguments against miracles: Not enough well educated witnesses

There have never been enough men who are good witnesses (have a good sense and education) to a miracle as to say it happened without any doubt. "Of such undoubted integrity as to place them beyond all suspicion"

Paul Tillich on miracles

Uses the New Testament as a basis for which he tried to define miracles. He argues that Hume's definition introduces 'irrationalist rationalism' meaning that 'the degree of absurdity in a miracle story becomes the measure of its religious value. The more impossible the more revelatory". Tillich prefers the term sign. Miracles are given only to those for whom they are sign events, to those who will receive them ecstatically. A genuine miracle is first of all an event which is astonishing, unusual shaking, without contradicting the rational structure of reality. In the second place it is an event which points to the mystery of being, expressing in relation to us in a definite way. In the third place it is an occurrence which is received as a sign event in an ecstatic experience. It seems that a miraculous event becomes a miracle as that interpretation is places on the events by the 'miracled' person. A miracle or sign is therefore subjective

Criticism of Wiles' view: Human rationality

Wiles' argument depends on the fact that human rationality being applied directly to God. Questions about God's actions being arbitrary only arise if you thing that Gods's actions have to conform to the rational understanding that humans understand