diff understandings of miracles Flashcards
realist account
generally hold:
- scientific theories give us true descriptions of world
- give as knowledge of things we believe to exist but can’t observe
- world is mind-independent (exists the way it does regardless of our thoughts)
when applied to miracles, a realist account sees them as real events that were brought about by God
what is the key miracle for Christians?
resurrection
Flew’s view on this is that of a conventional Christian theologian that is necessary for Christianity to maintain its idea of incarnation which is where God has been revealed definitively in Jesus
what do realists in the scientific sense have to accept?
- best scientific theories we have now give us true descriptions of the world which gives us true descriptions of things we believe to exist but can’t observe
- world is mind-independent meaning the world exists and is the way it is despite what we think
can religious people also be realists about miracles
- miracles are real part of what happens in the world brought by God or empowered by God
- God exists as transcendent & unobservable being but miracles are evidence of his existence and care for the world
- these are true despite fact we don’t understand everything on miracles
- when a realist says a miracle happens they’re telling us the nature of the event
realist example
coincidence of beneficial nature
Julianne Koepcke in 1971 was on flight 508 when encountered a thunderstorm and crashed after a free-fall of 10,000ft killing all crew and passengers excluding her. she had been sole survivor with various injuries/infections but survived a 9 day journey to get help
Seen a miracle in Peru brought by God
realist example evaluation
the problem was a miracle of beneficial nature is if God helped her survive what about the other 91 people? why bring only one survival when they are multiple people
natural laws as descriptive/probalistic
what does it mean that laws of nature are descriptive not prescriptive?
‘law of nature’ can’t dictate what must happen but summarises what has been found to happen
natural laws as descriptive/probalistic
can laws of nature be broken?
not like when you break judical laws, if you break judical laws you do so by disobeying and having possible punishment but with LON if event doesn’t conform to scientific laws predictions then evidence for event is faulty so law needs to be adapted/revised
natural laws as descriptive/probalistic
implication for a God that is “god of gaps”
‘God’ will be used as explanation to fill in gaps in scientific understanding but made redundant as explanation by new scientific discoveries
natural laws as descriptive/probalistic
further implications of realist account
suggests they’re rare /exceptional events
anti-realist account
- when applied to miracles, a miracle may be seen as something that lifts the spirit or transforms community of people
why do anti-realists deny realists?
- will argue we can have no knowledge of a mind-independent world as the phenomena observed by our senses are interpreted by the mind. mind is our only means of understanding anything
- can be no commitment to anything unobservable as has no cognitive content - how can talk meaningfully about ‘unobservable things’
what may someone whose anti-realist may make similar claims on miracles?
- we can have no knowledge of a transcendent realm, so idea of miraculous intervention in this world by a transcendent God isn’t a sensible idea
- miracles are ‘in the mind’ - they’re mental states or attitudes that are to be understood in terms of psychology and sociology
how does an anti-realist talk about miracles?
- informing us about their state of mind NOT making a claim of event itself
- Tillich and Holland both offer anti-realist view
miracles as sign-events
Tillich’s definition
- doesn’t see God as a ‘being’ but God is ‘being-itself’ thus Tillich holds miracles are ‘sign-events’ that cant be divorced from their religious context
- to be considered a miracles event has to be astonishing without breaking LON
