Miracles (A Level) Flashcards
Who gives the realist definition of miracles as ‘“fortuitous coincidences”?
R. Holland
Who gives the realist definition of miracles as a violation of natural law, “a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition or deity or by the interposition of some invisible agent”?
David Hume
Who supports the anti-realist view that miracles are sign-events which are a subjective experience dependent on the individual experiencing it?
Tillich
How does Richard Swinburne respond to Hume’s view on miracles?
Swinburne responds to Hume with the following arguments:
- The definition of miracles offered by Hume is ‘probabilistic’ in that laws of nature describe only what will probably happen, but sometimes this is not the case. In illustrating this point, Swinburne gives the ANALOGY OF THE BEACH - on a perfect beach with golden sand, there could exist on single red grain of sand. It is unlikely that you will ever find this red grain, but the possibility still exists. This is like the occurrence of miracles, which, though potentially improbable, can still occur
- In addition, Swinburne argues that the quantum laws that govern the universe do appear to tell use what is likely to happen but not what will certainly happen; science can become outdated, and many scientists can still believe in miracles
- Testimonies of miracles can be accepted under Swinburne’s Principles of Testimony and Credulity. Swinburne uses the example of St. Bernadette of Lourdes to support this
- Miracles are probable if the omnipotence and benevolence of God is taken into consideration
- ANALOGY OF THE PARENT - just as parents have exceptions to the rules they teach their children, e.g. that it is wrong to lie apart from in some cases such as to keep a party a secret, God can make exceptions to his own laws of nature, making miracles probable
- Hume suggested that natural laws could be used as scientific evidence against the probability of miracles, and Swinburne counters this by suggesting that there are three types of historical evidence which support miracles: 1) our apparent memories, 2) the testimony of others. 3) the physical traces left by the events in question
How does Paul Tillich respond to Hume’s view on miracles?
Tillich responds to Hume with the following arguments:
- Miracles should be seen as religious signs and not ‘violations of the laws of nature.’ Hume’s definition of a miracle presents God as a magician who conjures miracles without pattern or thought
- Tillich identified some characteristics of miracles that supported his idea that they are not simply breaks in laws of nature. Miracles can be: 1) astonishing, 2) point to the ‘mystery of being’ and tell us something about God, and 3) cause feelings that overwhelm the recipient (‘miracles are received as a sign event in an ecstatic experience’)
- For Tillich, because of the characteristics he identified, miracles do occur. There are no other explanations and a person’s experience and faith tells them the miracles has come from God
How does R.F. Holland respond to Hume’s view on miracles?
Holland responds with the following argument:
- Miracles do not have to be seen as grand events where the laws of nature are broken, but rather as “fortuitous coincidences” with underlying religious significance
- Holland uses the example of a child playing on the railway with a toy car before becoming stuck in the track as a high-speed train approaches. The mother sees the boy and rushes to rescue him. The train stops within feet of the boy and the mother does not doubt that a miracle has happened. The driver had in fact fainted as a result of high blood pressure and the brakes had been applied as the driver no longer exerted enough pressure on the control lever
- Holland argues that, for the mother, the train stopping was a miracle, despite the actions of the driver being of pure coincidence. With this idea there is no way of assessing what is believed to be coincidence on such a scale and therefore what can be considered a miracle
