Miracles

Question 1

Define antirealism

Answer 1

This understanding denies that we can have knowledge of a mind-dependent world since all the phenomena we observe with our senses is interpreted by the mind

Question 2

Give the antirealist definition of a miracle

Answer 2

A miracle can be seen as something that lifts the spirit and transforms a community of people, but it doesn’t mean that it actually happens. A religious person sees something as a miracle because of their psychological makeup

Question 3

Define realism

Answer 3

Realists understand that scientific theories give us true descriptions of the world and the world is mind-independent existing the way it is regardless of what we think about the matter

Question 4

Give the realist definition of a miracle

Answer 4

The belief that they are real events brought about by god/someone empowered by him
‘with man this is impossible, but with god all things are possible’

Question 5

What did Anthony Flew say about miracles

Answer 5

• Pointed out that a major feature of christianity was that it is based upon a supposed historical moment - death and resurrection of Jesus - and therefore its truth is dependent on historical evidence. because the key miracle for christians is his resurrection isn is important to understand whether or not it should be understood as a historical event
• His view, supported and shared by Swinburne, is that the factual approach is necessary for christianity to maintain tis idea of the incarnation- realist view that god was revealed in Jesus
• Swinburne argues that the resurrection is the pivotal central core of christianity
• The issue with this is that by saying that a miracle is a historical event you are then fced with the normal criteria for establishing historical events

Question 6

Describe the nature of miracles according to realists

Answer 6

• Extraordinary coincidence of a beneficial nature which involves god/religious revelation
• Miracles for catholics today aren’t merely historical events but verifiable and substantiate the canonisation of a person
• For christians, miracles are real and come about through the activity of god nd are signs of the kingdom of god - they are objectively true even though they aren’t fully understood - Catholics are realists because they believe anything is possible through God

Question 7

Describe how realists consider miracles ‘extraordinary coincidences of a beneficial nature’

Answer 7

• Eg the explosion in the chapel in Nebraska - all choir members would have died if they weren’t all late that day
• Critics argue that this definition of a miracle is limited - it only describes the event and doesn’t make any claims about the involvement of god

Question 8

Describe how realists define miracles as events brought about by a spritual power/god

Answer 8

• Eg WHEN GOD WORKED THROUGH MOSES TO DELIVER THE ISRAELITES from slavery
• many Catholics regard miracles in the NT as historic events
• The importance of miracles as examples of divine power and strength is particularly important in catholicism - miracles invite belief and strengthen faith but are not intended to satisfy people’s curiosity for magic to solve all evils
• A person cannot become a saint unless they’ve performed 2 miracles, showing that miracles are considered by the church as god’s action through that person and therefore their endorsement of their skills

Question 9

Describe the traditional realist understanding of a miracle

Answer 9

• It breaks the laws of nature
• Something that happens when GOd’s intervention interferes with the workings of natural law
• an intentional act of god’s will
• an event with religious significance

Question 10

What are the issues with the realist approach to miracles

Answer 10

• It encourages a god of the gaps approach
• Today’s science doesn’t accept this concept as it sees the laws of nature as descriptive and probabilistic

Question 11

Describe the understanding of miracles as violations of natural law

Answer 11

• if we take natural law to be a statement of the way nature works when left itself, then ‘natural law’ defines what is possible for nature to do/not do
• Miracles then ever to acts which go against the laws of nature as they couldn’t have happeend if nature alone was at work therefore it must have involved some volition by the deity
• ‘a miracle is a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the deity’
• John Mackie also sees no issue with the idea of intervention into a closed system , accepting that the concept of god’s intervention is conceivable ‘ we can think of a supernatural intervention as something which intrudes into the system from outside the natural world as a whole’

Question 12

Describe the idea of natural laws as descriptive/probabilistic

Answer 12

• the natural laws are summaries of what we’ve observed empirically
• when something appears contradict a law of nature it is because: the evidence is faulty, there is an unknown factor not considered by the law, or the law is inaccurate an needs updating . instead of saying laws are broke, scientists say that they need to be changed baed on new evidence

Question 13

Describe Hick’s argument that miracles are not a violation of natural law

Answer 13

• Hick supports the idea of the natural laws beign descirptive/probablistic - if there appears to be an exception to a law of nature hen the law expands to include the exception
• Hick: natural laws are made via observation therefore ‘violation’ miracles have to be impossible, s if we see something that violates the law then our understanding of the law must be expanded. What seems to be a violation is therefore actually a natural event
• For example, what might currently be seen as a healing miracle may later be understood by science - the god of the gaps approach is mistakenly being used for unexplained scientific phenomena
• Natural laws can be considered probabilistic, showing what is likely to happen as opposed to what WILL happen
• However, Keith ward challenges this idea, arguing that it is reasonable to think that ‘truly anomalous events could occur’ and aren’t produced by nature alone

Question 14

Describe Hume’s argument that miracles are not a violation of natural law

Answer 14

• IF the concept of the violation of natural law is accepted, then is it likely that the evidence to support the miracle will outweigh the mass of evidence supporting the natural law which has said to have been breached?
• And, if such an intervention is an act of god’s will, why is there so much suffering?

Question 15

Describe Hume’s critique of miracles

Answer 15

• Hume offered a realist definition of a miracle: ‘ transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the deity’, defining a miracle as a breaking of a law of nature by God
• Hume’s critique of miracles is based off of empirical evidence - he argues that all knowledge comes from experience, and religion is based on incorrect factual claims
• Our own experience of the consistency of the laws of nature shows that a violation of them is the least likely of all events
  His argument against miracles is inductive and follows the logic of 4 steps:
  1) Witness testimony must become more reliable in direct proportion to the improbability of the claim
  2) The most improbable event would be a violation of the laws of nature. The evidence of the empirical knowledge on which natural laws are based means that they must by definition contradict the claim of a miracle occurring
  3) By definition, the reported event is maximally improbable
  4) The probability that the witness is fallible is therefore greater than the probability a miracle has truly occurred ‘No human testimony can have such force as to prove a miracle’
• Hume also says that we must choose the lesser miracle - this is supported by Ockham’s razor, which argues that the simplest explanation is usually correct. In order for a miracle to be true, the denial of the miracles would have to be more miraculous than it’s acceptance

Question 16

Describe Hume’s supporting arguments from psychology

Answer 16

• Witnesses of miracles must be well educated, with no reason to lie - humans love the fantastic, and want to believe in miracles in order to support their religion. As a result, most claims of miracles should be dismissed
• Many claims of miracles come from ‘ignorant and barbarous nations’ so should be dismissed as they are unreliable
• Miracles in other religions cancel each other out.

Question 17

Describe the criticisms of Hume’s critiques of miracles

Answer 17

1) His argument is inductive, therefore cannot be a knockdown argument:
- He suggested that his argument is as close to proof as we could ever get, but inductive arguments aren’t proofs as they deal in probabilities
- Science can’t say that something will never happen, only that it is unlikely. This is why Hume is careful to qualify his argument, and explain that there can never be enough evidence to qualify a miracle, not that a miracle can never occur
- Because scientific laws are descriptive/prescriptive, a law of nature cannot dictate what MUST happen as it only dictates what has found to have happened - therefore there is still the possibility for miracles to exist
2) Hume’s psychological arguments aren’t that strong: his claim that there are no properly attested to miracles by men of sufficient good faith/sense is contradicted about his own praise of Tacitus ,who reported miracles, and whom Hume praised as ‘free from any tendency to credulity’

Question 18

Describe the strengths of Hume;s argument

Answer 18

• It is important to ignore them, as they are the starting point for much of philosophy
• If you read the miracle stories in the Bible, they paint a portrait of a world very different from ours with numerous contradictions and questionable moral judgements - faith may not find it difficult to overcome these issues, but reason suggests that Hume’s overall judgements about miracles are closer to the truth
• Hume;s arguments don’t compel us to reject the idea of miracles, but they do compel us to think closer about the history of reported miracles

Question 19

Describe the antirealist understanding of a miracle

Answer 19

• Miracles are signs pointing to/from God, which hold religious significance and reveal something about god to a community
• the concept of miracles is subjective, and dependent on individual cultural beliefs rather than being an objective occurrence in the natural world.
• Miracles might be seen as interpretations/expereicnes shaped by personal/cultural factors rather than events that violate the laws of nature. What some people perceive as a miracle could be explained by natural processes

Question 20

Describe Tillich’s antirealist view of miracles

Answer 20

1) Miracles are sign events: they are of religious significance, and tell us something about God. This belief comes from miracles in the bible
- Miracles are astonishing ‘without contradicting the rational structure of reality’ - they do not violate the laws of nature
2) Miracles point towards what Tillich calls ‘the mystery of being’ and they reveal something about god’s nature , relating specifically to the experiencers experience
3) Miracles reveal God to people ‘ an occurrence received as a sign event in an ecstatic experience’ within that view Tillich doesn’t see God as a being but rather ‘being itself’ having existence instead
- Instead of being miracles in the realist terms of interventions in the world by a transcendent God, he sees them as ‘sign events’ which must be in a religious context’
- Tillich defines miracles as ‘ an event which is astonishing…without breaking any Law of nature…. it must point to the mystery of being’
- There is no commitment to the idea of God as a being who from a transcendent realm intervenes to bring about a miracle - no law of nature is violated. Other people would observe the same events but not see them as miracles.

Question 21

Describe Keith Ward’s anti-realist support of Tillich

Answer 21

• In response to Tillich’s three requirements for miracles, he said:
  ‘those three marks… stress the subjective element…rather than the objective nature of the event itself’
• ‘Miracles are mainly astonishing mind events which do not destroy the natural structure of events but rather disclose the ultimate mystery of my being’
• Ward agrees with Tillich that miracles aren’t brought about by something supernatural that breaks the laws of nature - the laws remain intact, and the miracle is in the mind of the believer, serving to re-establish their relationship with God who is ‘the ground of my being’

Question 22

Describe Holland’s anti-real view of miracles as natural events

Answer 22

• His story of the child on the railway line shows for him that an event doesn’t have to violate a law of nature to be thought of as a miracle. His story is a ‘coincidence miracle’ but he argues that there is nothing miraculous about coincidences apart from how they are interpreted
• the event is not a violation of the natural order - what makes it a miracle for the mother is that it is a beneficial coincidence which she interprets in a religious fashion
• the mother believes in God, and so her understanding of the event makes sense within the context of her religious life - she realises the event as God’s approach to human need
• Wittgenstein supports this idea : he argues that the event belongs to a belief system of which she subscribes which causes her to interpret it this way , thus in that context it is fair to call it a miracle

Question 23

Describe the weaknesses of the anti-real position

Answer 23

• All miracles can’t be anti-real as Christianity depends on the certainty of the miracle of Jesus’ death and resurrection
• CS Lewis countered anti-real miracles with his trilemma: Jesus said that he was the son of God and that he could perform healing miracles - either this is objectively true, or false - if it is false, Jesus was a liar, a madman or the real son of God - and 2/3 make him unworthy of beign followed
• Criticism of Holland: miracles could merely just be a product of people’s minds
• Criticism of Tillich - it avoids taking miracles literally so it doesn’t survive CS lewis

Question 24

Describe Wiles’ belief about miracles

Answer 24

• He rejects the idea of any interventions of God into the universe, not from a logical perspective but rather a moral one - the universe is part of a single ongoing act of creation by god but denies God the ability to specifically intervene in the world. God physically could perform miracles, however:
• It would undermine the laws of nature, without which we wouldn’t be able to live normal lives and there would be chaos
• If god performed miracles such as curing children at Lourdes and making statues cry it would mean he was no longer worthy of worship - why didn’t he intervene in the Holocaust?
• Morally, we have to reject the idea of an interfering and intervening God as illogical, as he’d no longer be omnibenevolent
• Therefore, it is theologically better to believe in a God who doesn’t cause miracles rather than one who isn’t morally good
• Wiles contends miracles don’t happen because: if they are violations of the laws of nature they must occur so infrequently that the laws of nature aren’t pointless, the pattern of miracle occurrences is strange , and the large amount of evil not prevented by God raises questions

Question 25

Describe Wiles’ critique of miracles

Answer 25

• Hi main argument is that God doesn’t act in the world through miracles but rather they are sign events, adding that ‘it is particularly important to emphasise the symbolic character of these miracles because they are often understood literally… and so the whole relation of God and the world becomes a nest of absurdities’
• The view that God does perform miracles has happened because God has been thought of as intervening in nature’s laws in order to perform miracles
• If God did act in this way, he would be seen to act immorally. If we think of God as sometimes using miracles to help people, then the whole idea of miracles becomes ‘not merely implausible…but religiously unsatisfactory in the view of their apparently occasional and highly selective nature’
• If God intervened selectively, then the problem of evil would be unsolvable as there would be no real reason why God couldn’t just intervene all the time . This would prevent him from appealing to the God given structures of creation, and their necessary role in setting creatures at a distance from their creator and providing a stable environment for their lives
• We should take an anti real view of miracles: they are as much to do with our fight against the PoE. Wiles shifts the debate to a question about what an event reveals concerning God’s intentions for the world ‘The healing ministry of Jesus is firmly set within the context of a conflict with evil’
• Jesus engages in actions to oppose evil- Jesus, during his temptation in the desert, refused to perform miracles as a sign that God doesn’t intervene in the world to perform miracles - the language of miracles in the bible is therefore mythical rather than literal and the only real miracle is that of creation itself
• Wiles’ god is perhaps deistic. God creates the world, and leaves it to work through its natural laws

Question 26

COmpare Hume and Wiles’ beliefs about miracles

Answer 26

1) Hume is an empiricist and an atheist who assumes that there is no God who can violate natural laws as this cannot be empirically verified - Wiles is a christian who assumes that there is a god who chooses not to intervene
2) Hume assumes that christianity is irrational, particularly about miracles - his argument that miracles are the least likely of all events shows that it is fundamentally irrational . Wiles however starts from the framework of Christian belief and tries to suggest ways in which God can be understood which do not require him to be selectively accurate in the world in the way Hume’s ‘violation’ approach suggests
3) Hume has an realist approach,. whereas Wiles has an anti real approach
4) nHume - if a miracle is an event which is so unexpected that it appears to be a violation of a natural law, then there is no point in calling it a miracle at all - Wiles argues that a miracle is a matter of personal interpretation, a symbol rather than actual fact, revealing god’s intentions

Question 27

Describe the significance of realist miralcles to realist faith - the biblical significance of miracles to a realist

Answer 27

• Christianity revolves around one key miraculous event - the resurrection of Jesus: Paul: ‘if christ has not been raised… your faith is futile’
• Realists would argue therefore that he resurrection does violate the laws of nature and therefore it is a real miracle
• scripture supports the realist idea of an intervening God which is a demonstration of his omnipotence and his mystical, unknown nature
• Swinburne supports this idea

Question 28

Realist significance of miracles to faith: describe the realist idea of a god who intervenes providentially as demonstrations of divine power and love

Answer 28

• The doctrine of God’s providence means he is believed to care for his creation based on his omnipotence and omnibenevolence - he has the power and love to be active in the world
• He intervenes through general (experiences of God given through reason or conscience) and special revelation ( scripture, religious significance)
• Hume defines miracles as violations of natural law…. concluding that miracles don’t occur . Christians may accept Hume’s definition, but conclude that miracles do exist as demonstrations of divine power and love

Question 29

Explain the issue with the realist idea the miracles are signs of a loving god and that is why they are significant to faith

Answer 29

• The selective nature of miracles leads to questions about HIS omnipotence - Keith Ward would however respond that miracles have a much wider purpose rather than just being selective demonstrations of God’s power: when God brings about a miracle it has universal significance, disclosing to humanity something about his nature/intentions. Miracles directly caused by God are interventions, and primarily signs - however, miracles may not necessarily be understood by all.
• When miracles are brought about through the agency of human beings, this is because the power to reign about human beings is always available, but only if we open ourselves up to God
• Schliermacher: we can experience miracles but we are not all ‘consciously awoken’ because we are too skeptical, however we are all capable of knowing god. therefore, the power to transform miracles is both natural and supernatural, but not interventionist.
• Ward therefore sees god as ‘not tinkering with creation’ through miracles, but that they are rather epiphanies of the spirit - god intended miracles to be signs of his interventions

Question 30

Describe the antirealist view of the significance of miracles to faith

Answer 30

• Tillich argued that god is not ‘being among other, but being-itself’ - miracles cannot contradict the rational structure of reality but they are instead interventions by a transcendent god - they do not relate to real events, but rather are ‘sign events’ which can’t be removed from their religious context and point to the ‘mystery of being’ so they are given through ecstatic religious experience so they therefore have a profound personal and spiritual significance - they are personal signs not pointing to God intervening, but rather being present in your life
• Holland’s child/train story: he miracle isn’t supernatural, but is rather an event with deep personal significance
• Wiles: understands that miracle events reveal something about God’s intentions to the world
• therefore, anti-realists argue that the interpretation of miracles ad their significance to faith is still important, as their ‘reality’ is in the mid of the experiencer - therefore they are extraordinary personal experiences