Miracles

Realists

• Miracle claims describe a mind-independent reality; miracles either happen or they do not

• David Hume - ‘An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding’

• Aquinas - ‘Summa Theologica’

Anti-realist

• Miracles are mind-dependent; whether they happen is relative to the person making the claim

• Maurice Wiles, Holland

A natural event

Associated with anti-realism

A violation of the laws of nature

Associated with realism

Realist understandings of the world

• There is a world which exists independently of the human mind

• Our senses give us at least some accurate knowledge of this world

• Our language goes at least some way to describing this world

Hume’s definition of miracle

“A miracle may be accurately defined as a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent”

St Thomas aquinas definition of miracle

“Those things done by a divine power apart from the order usually followed in things”

Humes beliefs on miracles

• If miracles occur, they are a “transgression of a law of nature”

• “Law of nature” = the way we have come to expect the natural world to behave based on our past observations

• Says these events do not take place because the evidence is stacked against them

• Jesus did not walk on water and anyone who says he did is wrong about this

Aquinas beliefs on miracles

• “The order usually followed in things” = the natural laws god has created to regulate the world

• Miracles must involve something contrary to the natural order, such as working in the opposite direction of a natural tendency, working beyond the reach of nature, and things done at an impossible speed

• Says these events do take place because god exists and some of these miracles are recorded, eg in the bible

• Jesus really did walk on water and anyone who says he did not will be wrong about this

Anti-realist understandings of the world

• There may or may not be a world independent of the human mind, but either way, we do not have direct access to it

• Our experiences go on ‘inside our heads’ rather than outside of them

• Our language is limited to describing our own perspective

Wiles definition of miracles

“The primary usage for the idea of divine action should be in relation to the world as a whole rather than to particular occurrences within it”

Wiles’ beliefs on miracles

• Not ‘special’ divine actions

• Totality of creation understood as ongoing miracle

• Miracles do have value but only in terms of how an individual interprets events in the world or expresses their beliefs

• “The primary usage for the idea of the divine action should be in relation to the world as a whole rather than to particular occurrences within it”

Holland’s definition of miracles

“A remarkable and beneficial coincidence that is interpreted in a religious fashion”

Hollands beliefs on miracles

• Believes that the realist definitions are too restrictive

• Any event which is contrary to our usual experience, whether or not it involves the violation of a natural law, should be understood as miraculous if it has religious insignificance - if it is “something for which god is thanked or thankable, something which has been or could have been prayed for”

• Gives the example of the train miracle: a train is about to turn a corner and hit a boy playing on the tracks, but the driver has a blood clot and the emergency brakes are applied. Even when she learns the real cause, the mother understands the event as a miracle.

Background facts on Hume’s identity as a philosopher

• Empiricist - advocated for something very similar to the modern scientific method and believed that knowledge was derived primarily from the senses

• Sceptic - believed that we should automatically doubt and question what we are told, as well as what we are inclined to believe

Hume’s problem of induction

• We can only argue from empirical evidence and never with total certainty

• We can only understand natural laws on the basis of probability

• We can expect the future but not know or infer it

• Assuming that the future will resemble the past is a logical fallacy

• What we learn from inductive arguments is merely a “habit of the mind” and not a robust proof that tells us anything about the world

Hume’s arguments against miracles

• We can only ever argue from empirical experience and never with total certainty (Problem of Induction). Any argument we make against miracles will be a matter of weighing up the probability of the event and the reliability of the witness’s testimony.

• Miracles involve violations of the laws of nature and are therefore contradicted by all the evidence we have ever experienced of the laws of nature. Any testimony must be so powerful that it makes it seem like more of a miracle that the event did not take place.

• People are filled with wonder and ignore logic because of their faith. They either self delude themselves or know that their beliefs are false but go on to delude others to promote their religion.

• Religions should all have similar beliefs/ experiences but they don’t - Judaism, Christianity and Buddhism are all incompatible with each other. No reason to believe one religion more than another because they all have to be compatible.

• There are several reasons why Hume believes that the testimonies of those who have witnessed miracles should not be trusted

Reasons Hume believes why the testimonies of those who have witnessed miracles should not be trusted

• There has never been a sufficient number of educated witnesses

• Religionists might believe they have seen something that has no reality, or know the event did not take place but lie to others in order to promote their cause

• Many miracle reports come from ignorant and barbarous nations

• The miracle claims of different religions are designed to prove their specific religion and therefore destroy each other’s credibility

Critically analysing Hume’s arguments against miracles

• His definition of miracle is often criticised as he fails to recognise that the ‘laws of nature’ are descriptive, rather than prescriptive – they tell us what has been observed rather than telling nature what it may or may not do

• So, if something goes against the rules of nature, it just is different from events that have previously been observed; it does not break a rule which must be obeyed and thus a ‘transgression of the laws of nature’ is not an impossibility – it is just unusual

• His practical arguments are sweeping generalisations

• How many witnesses would he deem sufficient? He has not stated

• He assumes that testimonies are second hand but what about first hand encounters?

• He begins by contending that no reasonable person could believe in miracles and thus it was inevitable that he would consider those who report miracles to be ignorant

• Who are the ‘barbarous and ignorant’ nations? He has not defined them

• Miracles are reported in modern western societies, contrary to what he states
  

Wiles - why miracles don’t happen

• Wiles argues that if God intervened randomly he would be arbitrary, meaning random. For example, it would be odd if Jesus turned water into wine to save the embarrassment of a host at a wedding but did not intervene in Auschwitz or Hiroshima. Wiles is offering a version here of the Problem of Evil

• Wiles argues that if God intervened randomly he would also be partisan, meaning taking a particular side and has favourites. If God saved the Israelites by parting the Red Sea, it suggests that he chooses who to save from suffering and ignores the pleas of others.

• Instead, Wiles says we should understand Biblical miracles symbolically, as ways of speaking about the real miracle (e.g. the transformation of people’s hearts and minds).

Significance of Hume’s view for religion

Hume’s argument affected the credibility of religious miracle claims. However, religion had a number of responses to this argument:

• Hume’s “ignorant and barbarous nations” criticism was only aimed at the early Bible miracles and is therefore not relevant to more modern miracles

• Hume sets the bar too high and it would be fairer to use Swinburne’s Principle of Testimony

• The fact that different religions make different claims might just mean that God presents himself in different ways to different cultures

• Hume rules out the possibility of taking an anti-realist approach to miracles such as Maurice Wiles’s

Significance of wiles’ view for religion

• Wiles’ argument is one of many connecting miracles to the Problem of Evil.

• It could be argued that these views are more significant after the atrocities of the twentieth century, events so horrific we might expect God to have intervened.

• Wiles shows that we do not have to sacrifice our faith, however, the move away from a literal perspective is problematic for many Christians