Miracles Flashcards
Define realism
Realism is the view that we can have knowledge of an objective reality. Realist views of miracles are thus those views which regard miracles as objective (mind-independent) events that are caused by God. When a realist claims a miracle has taken place, something has happened in the external world and they are describing the nature of this event
define anti realism
Anti-Realism is the view that we should be sceptical of the ability of the human mind to understand the true nature of objective reality. Anti-realist views of miracles are those views which regard miracles as subjective (mind-dependent) events taking place within our mind.
what is anti realism not
Anti-realism is not the view that miracles are not real, nor is it the view that miracles are real. Anti-realism is the view that the question of whether miracles are real or not real is beyond our human ability to understand. We should just focus on the meaning and significance of the miracles to our minds, therefore.
identify type 1 of aquinass miracles
Events done by God that nature could never do, e.g create something out of nothing.
type 2 of aquinas miracles
Events when God does something nature can do but not in the order God does it in. E.g resurrection of Christ. Nature can make someone live, just not after they have died.
type 3 of aquinas miracles
An event which nature could do but God breaks the rules or principles of nature. E.g God curing someone of a disease. Nature could cure them of a disease, but it’s part of the principles of nature that curing a disease takes time. God does it instantly, thereby breaking the principle of nature despite doing something nature could nonetheless do.
Humes opinion on miracles
Hume thought that the realist understanding of miracles accurately captured the theological belief in miracles held by Christians. However, he argued that we are never justified in believing that realist miracles happen.
how is hume an empiricist and how does that effect his belief in miracles
Hume is an empiricist, meaning he thinks our beliefs should be based on evidence and experience. Throughout our life, we gain an understanding the laws of nature through such experience. A miracle for Hume is ‘a violation of the law of nature’. Hume argues that there are various reasons to doubt testimony of a miracle:
Miracles are rare and thus belief a miracle has occurred more likely mistaken than not.
Miracle stories tend to come from ignorant and barbarous nations rather than people of good sense and education.
Humans have a tendency to believe wonderous things without justification
what is humes argument from evidence and probability
For Hume, anyone who claims to have seen or heard about a miracle has to ask themselves a simple question – what is more likely, that a miracle really did occur, or that it was some kind of misapprehension? According to Hume, a miracle by definition goes against our regular evidenced experience of how the world works, which means it is a very rare and unlikely event. So, based on our experience, the likelihood that a miracle actually happened is by definition always less than the likelihood that it hasn’t. It is rational to believe what is more likely, in which case belief in miracles is never justified, since it’s always more likely that a miracle didn’t occur
reply yo humes argument from evidence and probablity
Arguably this view is unempirical. If we followed Hume’s logic we would reject all new evidence that hadn’t been experienced before if it contradicted our current understanding of the natural laws since it’s simply ‘less likely to be the true’. However, it may well in fact be true. Empiricists should not be closed to that possibility otherwise knowledge would never progress. We could never gain new knowledge. Also, while the laws of nature may indeed be fixed, our knowledge of them is not. How could we possibly improve our understanding of the laws of nature if we simply rejected any contrary new evidence as unlikely to be real?
support to reply from evidence and probability modern science
Modern science does not accept the understanding of natural law, and does not accept that natural laws can be violated. Laws of nature are descriptive (based on evidence of observation), probabilistic (likely to happen, not certain), and open to expansion (science is an ever growing thing, if there appears to be an exception to the law, it isn’t a miracle, the natural law simply expands to include the exception)
hume on low quaity testimony for miracles
There is no miracle witnessed by many people who were of good sense, education, integrity and reputation. Miracle stories come “chiefly” from ignorant and barbarous nations. It is human nature to feel drawn to surprise and wonder, which makes us likely to believe strange and unusual things despite the belief not being justified.
Swinburne reply on low testimony
Swinburne argued for the principles of testimony and credulity. The principle of credulity argues that you should believe what you experience unless you have a reason not to. The principle of testimony argues that you should believe what others tell you they have experienced, unless you have a reason not to. Swinburne is an empiricist who argued that an experience of a miracle should count as evidence towards belief that it occurred, although it doesn’t constitute complete proof.
Swinburne argued that whenever we gain some new evidence, we can’t dismiss it for no reason – that would be irrational. It is only if we have other better-established evidence which contradicts that new evidence that we may rationally dismiss it. This is the rationale behind the principles of testimony and credulity. Experiencing a miracle is evidence, unless we have some other evidence to justify dismissing the experience.
against Swinburne on low testimony
Naturalistic explanations are always a reason not to believe. Any supposed miracle could be explained by mental illness, epilepsy, random brain hallucinations, fasting, drugs, alcohol, lack of sleep, etc. So, we will always have a reason not to believe any religious experience.
Swinburne reply to naturalistic explanations
We could defend Swinburne by pointing out that we could check for the presence of physiological and psychological causes of people’s experience of miracles. If none are present in a particular case, then we have no reason not to believe the experience in that case. Although we cannot rule out random brain hallucinations or unknown medical causes of religious experiences, but we have no evidence for those explanations and therefore must accept such cases as evidence for God.
