Miracles Flashcards
Who are the Philosophers associated with miracles?
- Maurice Wiles (anti-realist)
- RF Holland (anti-realist)
- David Hume (realist)
- St Thomas Aquinas (realist)
Who is Maurice Wiles?
An Anglican priest and academic
Is Maurice Wiles for or against the existence of miracles?
He is against the existence of miracles
What does Maurice Wiles reject?
He rejects the idea of any intervention by God into the created universe
What does Maurice Wiles NOT reject miracles on the grounds of?
Logic or science: He does not see anything logically wrong with the idea that God could choose (if he wanted) to create miracles
What DOES Wiles reject miracles on the grounds of?
He rejected them from a moral perspective
In what book does Maurice Wiles illustrate his views on miracles?
God’s Action in the World (1986)
Maurice Wiles “God’s Action in the World” quote
“… it would seem strange that no miraculous intervention prevented Auschwitz or Hiroshima (…) miracles acclaimed in traditional Christian faith seem trivial by comparison”
What are some examples of miracle healing in the Bible?
- A woman with internal bleeding (Mark 5:25-26)
- A man born blind (John 9:1-7)
What did Maurice Wiles conclude about miracles?
Wiles concluded that it is better theologically, to believe in a God that does not do any miracles than one that is not morally good
What is an objection to Maurice Wiles’ argument?
We cannot make God conform to human rationality as God acts in ways beyond our human understanding
What is an example of miracles that are important to Christians?
- The resurrection of Jesus
- Jesus walking on water
- The feeding of the 5000 people
Why is the resurrection of Jesus important for Christian faith?
- The basis of Christian faith
- It validates who Jesus claimed to be
- Validates life after death
- Validates Jesus’ teachings
- Jesus died for our sins
What allowed Jesus to walk on water?
His faith in God
What is the “feeding of the 5000” also known as?
The “miracle of the five loaves and two fish”
What perspective does RF Holland have on miracles?
An anti-realist perspective
What does RF Holland call his argument?
Contingency miracles
What does Holland argue that miracles are?
Nothing more than an extraordinary coincidence interpreted in a religious way
RF Holland quote
“a coincidence can be taken religiously as a sign and called a miracle”
What example does Holland give to support his anti-realist argument?
Holland gives the example of a boy stuck on a railway track with a train approaching. The train driver faints causing the train to stop which saves the boys life. The boys mother sees it as a miracle - even though she understands that there is a naturalistic explanation (interpretation).
Who is David Hume?
David Hume was a Scottish Enlightenment philosopher who is best known today for his highly influential system of philosophical empiricism - he is an empiricist
What is empiricism?
The idea that our beliefs should be based on evidence and experience
How does Hume have a realist understanding of miracles?
Hume thought that the realist understanding of miracles accurately captured the theological belief in miracles held by Christians - but he argued that we are never justified in believing that realist miracles happen
What does Hume define a miracles as?
“a violation of the laws of nature”
What is Hume’s multiple claims argument?
Testimony for miracles “destroys itself” - the fact that different religions all have miracle stories in them means their claims cancel each other out
Hume on the low quality of testimony for miracles
There is no miracle witnessed by multiple people who were of good sense, education, integrity and reputation. Instead, miracle stories come “chiefly” from ignorant and barbarous nations and when found in civilised people, they tend to be inherited from ignorant and barbarous ancestors.
What is a critique of Hume’s view on the low quality of testimony for miracles?
It appears that Hume’s requirements are a product of a bias. He appears to believe that those prior to the enlightenment are incapable of testifying to the truth (or at least their understanding of the truth was so flawed that it cannot be trusted). Hume’s argument is actually only a dogmatic assertion.
What is Hume’s argument from evidence and probability?
When judging what to believe, we should proportion our beliefs to the evidence. So, the evidence we have for the miracle (testimony) must be weighed against the evidence for the law of nature (scientific experiments)
What is a critique of Hume’s argument from evidence and probability?
Hume only allows testimonial evidence in favour of miracles. There can be residual circumstantial evidence in favour of an event. Many miracles leave physical and immaterial remnants (healed people, changed lives, etc.). Couldn’t there also be direct experience of a miracle? Hume assumes that miracles can only be testified to and not experienced.
Who is St Thomas Aquinas?
One of the most important philosophers and theologians of the Catholic religion
How did Aquinas define miracles?
He defined miracles as: “That which has a divine cause, not that whose cause a human person fails to understand” (from Summa Contra Gentiles)
What does Aquinas’ definition suggest?
Aquinas suggests all miracles are caused by the divine - the Judeo-Christian God (in his eyes)
How many types of miracles did Aquinas identity?
3
What is the first type of miracle that Aquinas identified?
Events done by God that nature could never do, e.g create something out of nothing
What is the second type of miracle that Aquinas identified?
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.
What is the third type of miracle that Aquinas identified?
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. God is breaking the principle of nature despite doing something nature could nonetheless do.
What is a general critique of Aquinas’ argument for the existence of God?
An argument that demonstrated the non-existence of God would be eo ipso a demonstration that miracles do not take place
What is a more specific critique of Aquinas’ argument for the existence of God?
Baruch Spinoza sets out to argue for the claim that nature cannot be contravened, but that she “preserves a fixed and immutable course,” in consequence of which a miracle is “a sheer absurdity”
- The will of God is identical with the laws of nature.
- A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature.
- Necessarily, God’s will is inviolable.
Therefore,
- Miracles cannot happen.
