Definitions Of Miracles According To Aquinas, Hume, Holland And Swineburne Flashcards
What is St Augustine’s definition of a miracle?
An early definition of a miracle was given by St Augustine (354-430) who held that a miracle is not contrary to nature because the hidden potentials in nature had been placed there by God: thus, it is only contrary to our knowledge of nature. He defined a miracle as “That which has a divine cause, not that whose cause a human person fails to understand.” It is beyond that natural power of any created being: God alone can do a miracle by changing natural order to his will.
What are the three kinds of miracles according to St Thomas Aquinas?
1) God does something which nature could never do: God made a shadow move backwards as a sign to Hezekiah in Isaiah 38:7-8. 2) God does something which nature can do, but not in this order: physical healings, such as the healing of the man with leprosy in Mark: “He reached out his hand and touched the man…Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed.” 3) God does something that nature does, but without the operation of the principles of nature: someone instantly cured of an illness. God is active in all three events and all miracles are beneficial to humanity.
What is David Hume’s definition of a miracle?
In the 17th century, any talk concerning the behaviour of things became expressed in terms of natural laws. Empiricist, David Hume (1711-76) thought natural laws were universal and governed all events. He defines a miracle as “a violation of natural law.” For Hume, a miracle is that which breaks the laws of nature and expresses divine cause: for example, raising a person from the dead. It breaks our regular experience of nature and demands intervention by God or a supernatural agent.
How does C. S. Lewis view miracles?
C. S. Lewis argued that God is interactive and, even today, continues to introduce new laws of nature: Lewis advocates “nature behaves in accordance to fixed laws, and that a miracle is God introducing a new law.” Lewis argues God performs miracles to remind us of his omnipotent, predestining nature as the creator and controller of natural laws.
What are the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ interpretations of Hume’s understanding of miracles?
Jeremiah 32:27 states “I am the LORD, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?” Hume’s understanding can be understood in two ways: ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ interpretation. ‘Hard’ assumes the laws of nature are unalterably uniform: if miracles are a violation of what cannot be altered, then they are impossible. It is argued that the laws postulated need to be adjusted to take in the new circumstance, so a new law of nature can be derived. An alternative view is ‘soft’: it sees natural laws not as fixed and unalterable, but laws which entail exceptions. They are regular patterns of events that can be altered by the intervention of God. This makes miracles about the credibility of the evidence for the altered law as opposed to the logical impossibility of a miracle. Hume said “nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happens in the common course of nature.”
What is Roy Holland’s view on miracles?
Roy Holland (1923) argues a miracle neither involved a breaking of the laws of nature, nor intervention by God. A miracle can only be spoken about against a religious background where the miracle is taken as a sign: “a remarkable and beneficial coincidence that is interpreted in a religious way.” He refers to this as a contingency miracle.
What example does Holland use to illustrate his definition of a miracle?
Holland uses the example of a child caught between rail tracks, with a train fast approaching: the boy will be hit by the train as there is too little distance for it to stop. However, the train did eventually stop due to the driver suffering a heart condition and causing the automatic breaking system to cut in. The mother holds this as a miracle, thanking God. A non-believer would describe the event as extraordinary lucky: it is the interpretation of an ordinary event that makes a miracle. Luke 1:37 states “For with God nothing shall be impossible.”
What is Richard Swinburne’s endorsement of Hume’s definition?
Richard Swinburne (1934 -) endorses Hume’s definition and accepts a miracle is an objective event in which God intervened due to his omnipotent nature. He gave examples of such events recorded in the Bible and Christian history: “the resurrection from the dead in full health of a man whose heart has not been beating for twenty-four hours and […] water turning into wine without the assistance of chemical apparatus or catalysts.” However, he makes two significant changes/additions. Firstly, he borrows a phrase from Ninian Smart: he uses the phrase “an occurrence of a non-repeatable counter-instance to a law of nature” to describe a miracle. By this, he meant given a law in nature, an event happens: it is not possible that the event could be predicted by replacing the law with a more successful one
What does Swinburne say about the significance of miracles?
Secondly, he advocates that miracles hold some deeper religious significance than just breaking the laws of nature: it must contribute towards a holy divine purpose for the world. Swinburne said “If a god intervened in the natural order to make a feather land here rather than there for no deep ultimate purpose, these events would not naturally be described as miracles.” Miracles are also seen as signs from God: the word ‘sign’ is used in John’s Gospel to refer to Jesus’ miracles which point to something beyond the actual event.
What is the ‘Principle of Credulity’ according to Swinburne?
It suggests that what one rationally seems to perceive is probably the case, thus supporting the existence of miracles. He also points to the ‘Principle of Credulity’, suggesting that what one rationally seems to perceive is probably the case, thus miracles do exist: he says “how things seem to be is usually a good guide to how they are.”
