Miracles

Question 1

How did Aquinas define miracles?

Answer 1

3 categories: 1) Any event that seems to be incredible and goes against the laws of nature e.g. sun crashing into the Earth.

2) Events which are incredible and go against the ordinary course of nature re.g. restoring the sight of the blind.
3) Events which are incredible but stay in the ordinary course of nature e..g. the instant curing of an illness that normally takes sometime to recover.

Question 2

What are the strengths of this definition?

Answer 2

Not 1 fixed thing, different criteria more plausible.
Doesn’t rely on religious belief.
Miracles don’t have to be something absolutely amazing allows for personal miracles e.g. cancer cured quickly.

Question 3

What are the weaknesses of this definition?

Answer 3

Is it possible to break the laws of nature logically? - but natural laws made by God so we can choose to suspend them?
Do you need to belief in God?

Question 4

What was Humes’ definition of miracles?

Answer 4

A “transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition ( act of will) of the deity or by the interposition of some invisible agent.” The deity because he is choosing to is moving away from or breaking the laws of nature.

Question 5

What are the strengths of this?

Answer 5

Doesn’t have to be God can be “any deity or invisible agent.”

Question 6

What are the weaknesses of this definition?

Answer 6

Makes someone responsible but don’t know who.
How do we know what the laws of nature are?
Knowledge is always changing. Can only decide something is a miracle if we know all the laws of nature.
Alastair Mckinnon - the laws of nature just describe the actual course of events, to define a miracle in this way is to call it an event that disrupts the actual course of events. This is self contradictorary.

Question 7

What is Swinburne’s definition?

Answer 7

Break the laws of nature, but also have a deeper religious significance. Somehow reveal the loving nature of God.

Question 8

What are the strengths of this definition?

Answer 8

See the connection between religion and miracle.

Miracle has to have a purpose, reason why he acts in this way.

Question 9

What are the weaknesses of this definition?

Answer 9

Significance is subjective.
Relies on belief in God.
R.F. Holland a boy playing on a railway line. The express train is about to come around the bend and not able to stop in time. Remarkably train stops few metres before hit the boy, driver fainted and the automatic act of switch stopped the train. These events are natural, but boy’s mother sees it as a miracle from God.
Only an event a person experiences as having religious significance.

Question 10

Jesus “ what is impossible with man is possible with God.”

Answer 10

Clear nature and quality of God, but too vague and some don’t believe in God.

Question 11

How did C.S. Lewis define miracles?

Answer 11

Miracle is “an intereference with nature by supernatural power.” God intervenes then the law if nature takes over again.
“It is therefore inaccurate to define a miracle as something that breaks the laws of nature.” “It doesn’t… if God creates a miraculous spermatozoon in the body of a virgin. It doesn’t proceed to break any laws. The laws at once take it over. Nature is ready.”

Question 12

What are the strengths of this definition?

Answer 12

The example of Mary - logically makes sense, interfered and then laws of nature back to normal again.

Question 13

What are the weaknesses of this definition?

Answer 13

Logically unclear -if you interfere with the laws of nature surely they are broken.
Just rewording Aquinas?

Question 14

What are examples of miracles in the Bible?

Answer 14

Jesus feeding the 5000: The disciples say to Jesus that the large crowd he is talking to cannot be fed and says he should send them to the villages, but Jesus says they don’t need to be sent away. Turns 5 loves of bread and 2 fish into enough food for 5000 with 12 basketful of broken pieces left over. Share what you have miracle of compassion, all loving God.
Jesus rises Lazarus from the dead: Jesus tells Martha his sister to remove the stone from the cave where his dead body is laid for 4 days. Jesus says “Lazarus come out” he comes out in his grave clothes and Jesus says “take off the grave clothes and let him go.” Jesus all powerful and intense love. Attempting to break laws of nature, Swinburne religious significance.

Question 15

What does Wiles think about miracles?

Answer 15

+If we take the interventionalist view of miracles God’s actions seem arbitrary and partisan.
Arbitrary - small - water into wine but doesn’t stop the holocaust.
Partisan - favouring some over others e.g. Israelites defended against the amorites.
Therefore they don’t happen as they go against God’s omnipotence and omnibenevolence as he doesn’t intervene in all situations e.g. answer to prayer and show favour.

Question 16

What did he think about miracles if they were seen a s violations of the laws of nature?

Answer 16

They are only plausible if they happen infrequently if they happened frequently it would make the laws of nature meaningless.

Question 17

What view did he reject?

Answer 17

The interventionalist view of miracles and the nature of God, miracles don’t happen as they can’t prove the existence of God by miracles as they question God’s attributes.

Question 18

How do some see Wiles?

Answer 18

As a deist, as he believed God creates and sustains the world, doesn’t randomly intervene instead sustains then world, every law of nature is kept causing it to exist.

Question 19

How does he think miracles need to be understood?

Answer 19

Symbolically in a spiritual way even the resurrection and reincarnation of Christ.
It would be wrong to say miracles can’t happen then allow for incarnation and resurrection.
He concluded incarnation isn’t an act of God - Jesus isn’t divine but a perfect example of how a humans should respond to God and we can still think of him as the incarnation.
It is the perfection of human response to God, the full humanity of Jesus is central.
Jesus freely and fully responded totally to God’s grace and in doing that incarnated God in the world.

Question 20

What are the strengths of his argument?

Answer 20

It may solve the problem of evil as God doesn’t intervene as he can’t or is bound by the laws of nature.
However this could suggest God doesn’t exists,as it disputes attribute of omnipotence if he isn’t above the laws of his own nature, so in practise really solved?

Appeals to educated believers as it allows a belief in God and the upholding of scientific laws. Nonetheless not convincing for majority as don’t correspond with trad view of God by stating believers misunderstood miracles for almost 2000 years.
Allows theists to reinterpret prayer as not something which wills God to act, but allows the individual to connect with God.

Question 21

What are the weaknesses of his argument?

Answer 21

It may be that God can’t be limited to what is rationally possible and his purpose remains beyond our human understanding.
Goes against trad established Christian views, clearly depicts God acting in a more direct way than Wiles suggests through miracles, not fully reflecting God’s nature. Leap in judgement not impossible to happened.
Miracles are more plausible if they fit into the general pattern of divine activity, arbitrary miracles are more believable than huge miracles.

Question 22

What is the problem of evil associated with miracles?

Answer 22

If God is omniscient, benevolent and omnipotent ( inconsistent triad) taking a literal understanding of miracles then in the Bible it would seem God is capable of intervening in the world. Why does he allow evil to happen?
Why doesn’t God perform miracles and intervene more regularly to avoid suffering? But could go to heaven and limit suffering ourselves.
Why does God intervene in some trivial cases, but often not in more serious cases of suffering? Wiles!

Question 23

What is Bultmann’s response?

Answer 23

We shouldn’t understand miracles in a literal sense demythologisation, otherwise like Wiles said God will seem arbitrary and uncaring.
However…. This would be a threat to trad Christian understanding of miracles and undermines their significance.
Does God fail to intervene because he can’t (threat to omnipotence) or because he chooses not to ( threat to benevolence.) ?

Question 24

What is Irenaeaus’ response?

Answer 24

Suffering is a necessary part of the process of ‘soul making’; if God kept intervening to prevent suffering this couldn’t happen.

Question 25

What is the counter argument to this?

Answer 25

If God is omnipotent then couldn’t he have found another way for us to achieve likeness.
Augustine - God can’t intervene whenever there is suffering, We suffer because we are being punished for disobeying God in the fall - is that fair we are all punished for a historical event? What about God being all loving and forgiving?

Question 26

What is the beyond our understanding?

Answer 26

We cannot hope to understand why God doesn’t always intervene, God is omniscient, all part of a greater plan.
If God makes the world but later intervenes when there is evil ie miracle then it presents a theat to his omniscience, surely he must have known this would happen.
If he doesn’t intervene threat to omnipotence or benevolence.

Question 27

How did Hume define miracles?

Answer 27

“Trangression from the laws of nature due to a violation of a particular deity.”

Question 28

What is Hume’s argument from probability?

Answer 28

Probability of miracles happening so low it is irrational and illogical to believe they do. Hume was an empiricist basing his knowledge on observation and experience of our world.
When we investigate stories, we examine evidence from a witness.
The laws of nature are fixed and unvarying despite people saying miracles violate the laws of nature.
It is more likely and probable that reports on miracles are incorrect.

Question 29

What example did he use to show this?

Answer 29

When Christ raised Lazarus from the dead after he had been dead and buried, this is more likely to be an incorrect report as our experiences in our world show that people do not rise from the dead especially not after they have been buried. Probable it didn’t happen.

Question 30

What was his theory of induction?

Answer 30

Leap in knowledge that miracles break the laws of nature with no evidence from our world. ‘Prop’ up religion, Christianity reliant on resurrection but can’t prove this so more likely it didn’t happen based on our experiences of the world.

Question 31

What is his practical argument?

Answer 31

Questions validity of miraculous events.

1) We cannot trusts that those who testify to miraculous event, aren’t being deceived, confused or lying.
2) Humans are naturally drawn towards the miraculous, love being dazzled by the mysterious and can often form unreasonable beliefs on the basis of these experiences that shouldn’t be trusted.
3) Stories of the miraculous occurrences abound amongst the ‘primitive and barbarous’ people not sophisticated enough in their understanding.

Question 32

What did he call miracles?

Answer 32

‘Contrary facts’ different religions e.g. Christian experiencing answer to prayer or Hindu experiencing Ganetha’s voice. claim the miracle performed by members of their faith show their belief system is true, but they cannot all be true at the same time, so cancel each other out.
BUT NO REASON TO BACK THIS, ONE COULD BE RIGHT.
TRYING TO LOGICALLY DISPROVE FAITH, NOT BASED ON LOGIC OFTEN SPIRITUAL AND MILLIONS FAITH TO BELIEVE MIRACLES INTERVENTION FORM GOD.

Question 33

What are the strengths of this argument?

Answer 33

Hume shows the flawed nature of most accounts of miracles.
If 2 miracles stories conflict they cancel each other out in supporting the contradictory religious argument.
It is reasonable to disbelieve miracle claims as they are normally made up by the religions.
God may have given the primitive and b barbarous as miracle, as they were more in need than those who are privileged.

Question 34

Who backed Hume?

Answer 34

Maurice Wiles - unlikely to happen as arbitrary and partisan dispute God’s perfect love and goodness. Frequent intervention, laws of nature pointless.
Flew - no evidence for miracles, the wise man would reject miracles,, Historians only have evidence of a miracle if they were actually there, they aren’t so rely on indirect evidence.
We compare to things we already know to figure out the fact.
When we hear stories like water into wine, experience tells us this is incorrect as never seen it, reject story based on evidence.

Question 35

What are weaknesses Hume’s theory?

Answer 35

Confuses probability with frequency, wouldn’t expect miracles to happen often, but many things happen infrequently that go against the regularity of our earthly experiences e..g, full eclipse of the sun still believe it happens.
Peter Vardy relies on laws of nature being set in stone, presuppositions without enough evidence.
Focuses to heavily on probability and truth of people’s testimonies, rather than going back to the source whether miracles do actually happen gives no explanation why resurrection can’‘t be true.
Focuses solely on what a person might think after hearing a miracle not if they witnessed one or were healed from a terminal illness, most likely to trust account from someone trustworthy not all primitive and barbarous.
Truth of observation not educational level of witness assessed in court.
Presumes all biblical miracles untrue, but wasn’t there at the time so not concrete evidence! Never testimony good enough if not backed by evidence in our world.
Testimonies backed by scientific evidence.

Question 36

What is Sherlock’s criticism?

Answer 36

Asked if we could ask a person who lived in a warm climate if they had ever seen a river freeze could believe with no evidence rivers freeze in colder places as it is improbable according to the regularity of their experience.

Question 37

How did CS Lewis defend miracles?

Answer 37

People naturalists or supernaturalists. Ntaturalists believe world is physical and nothing else exists.
Supernaturalists believe same but God and soul too.
If one is naturalists then self defecating as we are all physical things subject to physical laws. Belief isn’t active, but physically caused.
If you accept God, possible to believe in miracles, when naturalists rejects assuming world is purely physical.

Question 38

How did Polkinghorne defend miracles?

Answer 38

Science only tells us normal expectations, God may act in new ways when circumstances change. Laws don’t generally change, but can change if God starts to deal with humans in a new way - e.g. Jesus’ death and resurrection new age in God’s dealings with people.

Question 39

How did Swinburne defend miracles?

Answer 39

More evidence than looking at the testimonies e.g. memories, testimonies of others, medical examinations = more evidence the more probable miracles happen.
Natural laws not fixed truths, many statistical laws the most probable, particles don’t necessarily abide by these laws.
Difference between a formula being law and formula being a truth without exception.
God can suspend natural laws to intervene e.g.g parent giving child boundaries, parent may relax boundary in reaction to child’s request. God same?
Miracles happen once in a while, if regularly life strange as wouldn’t know if laws like gravity would operate.
Occasional miracles avoid humans becoming lazy and expecting miracles, if God always healed cancel not actively looking for a cure.

Question 40

What are the strengths of this?

Answer 40

Shows miracles have a wider purpose.

Shows how nature is not fixed and so don’t have to see word as just physical.

Question 41

What are the weaknesses of this?

Answer 41

Doesn’t remove problem of God being arbitrary, seems to go against benevolence.
If God is omni benevolent surely would intervene regularly, since he doesn’t no miracles.
Questionable if God can break laws of nature, even if it is occasional.
Very vague, lacks plausibility.

Question 42

How does the Bible give a picture of the world?

Answer 42

In which God is the creator and is involved helping followers. Does this make sense to modern people?
Can they be expected to believe in miracles?
Whether modern people can believe in miracles means addressing problems raised by God acting in the world, like in Joshua 10 biased God and looking at arguments against miracles being real problem of evil.
Some try and understand a belief in miracles by taking new approaches to make sense of miracles. - Swinburne and Polkinghorne. Others scientific like Flew.

Question 43

Assess whether modern people can be expected to believe in miracles:

Answer 43

Hume’s claim miracles don’t happen in the modern age flawed as many cases seen today - Hume written long ago relies on inductive empirical evidence. Possible in complex modern era new empirical evidence challenge Hume like Swinburne.
Kant and other may be right is saying religious issues are a matter of faith, 1 is supernaturalist or naturalist ( Lewis) taking the way they want. Whichever path requires faith in that position.
To believe in God or miracles needs faith, scientific logic of this age not fully asses miracles or God.
Just because slim chance miracles happen, doesn’t mean it is irrational they happen, inductive argument Hume not necessarily wrong.
Definition of miracles, it is possible to understand miracles as normal events, people giving them religious significance. Takes out irrationality, but what would be known as a miracle? Doesn’t reflect biblical view of miracles, God does law breaking things.
Wiles allows educated people to believe in God and uphold scientific laws, but understanding of miracles lost, but keep up understanding of R.F Holland’s view on miracles as doesn’t need violation.
Ockham’s razor modern adaptation, all complexities of modern age many things science hasn’t answered, simplest explanation most probable - God.

Question 44

How do people reject miracles on theological grounds?

Answer 44

Wiles argues that a miracle working God doesn’t solve problem of evil. Miracles compromise goodness of God, unfair God helps some and not others.

Question 45

What is the counterargument to this?

Answer 45

Irenaeus - world allows us to grow, if he always intervenes wouldn’t grow. Still makes sense to suggest God can act randomly in performing miracles to have impact on our lives.
God gives mankind freedom to make any choice to believe or not. Miracles may be signs to encourage people to respond to God.

Question 46

How do people reject miracles scientifically?

Answer 46

Some scientists say nature has strict and closed laws, nature was made by God, natural evil is the responsibility of God.
If he intervened to protect it, it would show world is n’t perfect, paradox if he didn’t intervene affect his goodness.

Question 47

What is the counterargument to this?

Answer 47

Augustine’s theodicy blames humans for evil as misuse of free will, God shouldn’t intervene.

Question 48

How do people defend miracles as symbolic stories?

Answer 48

Bultmann stories of miracles in NT additions inspire us to follow God, should be read symbolically not literally teaching us about the extent of God’s power. Helps solve problem of evil as God doesn’t literally intervene in an arbitary way so fair.
Why does God not intervene maybe he can’t or chooses not to?

Question 49

What is the counterargument to this?

Answer 49

Bultmann may be right, but stories more effective if actually true. Of course miracles seem out of the world, but God surely can do that?

Question 50

How is a literal belief in miracles defended?

Answer 50

Miracles reveal God’s power and go against natural laws. Some punish and some help. Believers point to God’s overall plan for the kingdom of God and return of Jesus where evil will be eradicated.
God knows everything, everything may seem out of place but for the good overall.

Question 51

What is the counterargument to this?

Answer 51

May be valid but faith position, but not verifiable or falsifiable.