Miracles For And Against Flashcards
P1 - Some may agree that it is impossible for miracles to happen since the laws of nature cannot break.
Ex1 – Hume says that it is improbable that miracles happen, they are a “violation of natural law”. There is far more evidence for the laws of nature holding than for the occurrence of miracles. The testimony is poor that relates to an unscientific age, which was intrigued by wonder. Miracles can promote a religion so religions will naturally claim a miracle has occurred for its own gain, “A religionist may imagine he sees what has no reality” (Freud ‘universal obsessional neurosis’). Hume argues that people who believe in these miracle stories “will be found to have received these from ignorant…ancestors”.
R1 - In response to this however, for many, Hume’s criticisms can be seen to be elitist and incorrectly suggest that all who claim a miracle are uneducated and only claim miracles in order to gain something.
Ev1 - This is a convincing point since Swinburne defends the possibility of miracles occurring. He says that miracles need to involve both a particular timescale and also need to have a religious significance, God intervenes due to his omnipotent nature “an occurrence of a non-repeatable counter instance to a law of nature”. He proceeds to provide a rebuttal of Hume’s criticisms of miracles. He says that laws of nature can be suspended infrequently when God needs to interact with people. God’s omnipotence allows for the possibility of miracles as God can break the laws of nature. The fact this happens only occasionally is due to the desire to retain human free-will and also due to the fact that God does not always want to interfere with the laws of nature. (Can be supported by C.S.Lewis - God is interactive and, even today, continues to introduce new laws of nature: Lewis advocates “nature behaves in accordance to fixed laws, and that a miracle is God introducing a new law.” Lewis argues God performs miracles to remind us of his omnipotent, predestining nature as the creator and controller of natural laws. Jeremiah 32:27 states “I am the LORD, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?”).
L1 - Therefore, it is not impossible for miracles to happen.
P2 – Aquinas linked miracles with divine cause, arguing they are ‘that which has divine cause, not that whose cause a human person fails to understand’. This suggests that the lack of evidence for miracles is due to failure in human understanding.
Ex2 – This also suggests the idea of an interventionist God, which is a view supported by the Abrahamic faiths. For example, the revelation of the Qur’an to Muhammad on Laylat-ul-Qadr shows this concept of divine communication. For Aquinas, miracles are not only possible but beneficial to recipients as God is an active agent within them.
R2 – In response to this however, David Hume looks at the credibility of witnesses and susceptibility of belief. He stated that the quality of testimony required to establish the occurrence of a miracle can never be forthcoming. This is due to many reasons including miracles not having a sufficient number of witnesses, people being prone to look for marvel and wonders and the sources of miracles being from ignorant people. He states, ‘there is not to be found, in all history, any miracle attested by a sufficient number of men, of such unquestioned good-sense, education, and learning.’
Ev2 – This is a weak point as Brian Davies criticises Hume’s point about miracles being impossible to prove. He states that when man walked on the moon, that too was one instance of what was previously impossible, but that doesn’t make it necessarily untrue. This point is supported by Peter Vardy who questions what number of witnesses would be sufficient. He also criticises Hume for unfairly judging miracles when he has never experienced one himself.
L2 – Therefore showing that miracles are possible.
P3 – Indeed, it could be argued that depending on a person’s definition of miracle, a miracle can happen and does happen, if an event occurs which concurs with their definition.
Ex3 – Holland refers to contingency miracles in which it was the interpretation of an ordinary event that gave it its miraculous nature. Holland uses the example of a child caught between rail tracks, with a train fast approaching. The train beat the odds and stopped: the mother holds this as a miracle, thanking God. A non-believer however would describe the event as extraordinary lucky. Therefore, Holland holds that it is the interpretation of an ordinary event that makes a miracle. Luke 1:37 states “For with God nothing shall be impossible.”
R3- In response to this however, Holland appears to all any unexpected beneficial event a miracle without any reference to a supernatural agent causing the event. It has used a term usually applied to the intervention of a supernatural agent and applied it to a natural occurrence although an unexpected occurrence.
Ev3 – This is a strong point as John Hick stated that we cannot have miracles by definition. He argues that if we change the laws of nature to suit a miracle, then the miracle no longer ‘breaks’ the laws of nature and is no longer a miracle. He argues that the miracles in the Old Testament were merely natural occurrences interpreted religiously. For example, the miracle that occurred when Joshua fought the Gibeonites and the sun standing still and giant hailstones falling could be put down to a natural occurrence and a basic astronomical mistake.
L3 – Therefore showing that miracles are not possible.
P4 – In conclusion, miracles have been claimed in the past and in the present in many different societies and cultures, many of which would be deemed to be scientific and educated. This is a rebuttal of one of Hume’s criticisms and this also affirms faith traditions, often giving credibility to either a faith or a religious leader.
Ex4 – The sacred writings of many religions record supernatural events to vindicate the claims of those who are accepted as God’s messengers on Earth. For example, the parting of the red sea or Jesus’ resurrection in the Bible.
R4 – In response to this however, Hume pointed out that religious traditions regarding miracles counteract each other. For example, an Islamic miracle supports Islam and therefore counteracts Christianity and visa versa. Therefore, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Miracles are therefore self-cancelling as witnesses to the truth of a religious system.
Ev4 – This is a strong point as Hume argues that the sources of miracles are from ignorant people. The miracle stories acquired authority without critical or rational inquiry. He states that if the stories had originated in ‘’a city renowned for arts and knowledge,’ rather than a remote country then they would not have been believed. He states ‘if a civilised people has ever given admission to any of them, that people will be found to have received them from ignorant and barbarous ancestors.
L4 – This therefore shows that miracles are not possible.
(P5) It could be argued that Holland’s definition of a miracle is most adequate as he argued a miracle neither involved a breaking of the laws of nature, nor intervention by God. A miracle can only be spoken about against a religious background where the miracle is taken as a sign: “a remarkable and beneficial coincidence that is interpreted in a religious way.” He refers to this as a contingency miracle. it was the interpretation of an ordinary event that gave it its miraculous nature.
(Ex5) Holland uses the example of a child caught between rail tracks, with a train fast approaching. The train beat the odds and stopped: the mother holds this as a miracle, thanking God. A non-believer however would describe the event as extraordinary lucky. Therefore, Holland holds that it is the interpretation of an ordinary event that makes a miracle. Luke 1:37 states “For with God nothing shall be impossible.”
(R5) In response to this however, it could be said that Aquinas’ definition is more adequate. He linked the act of a miracle to divine cause. He suggested God does something which nature can do, but not in this order: for example, physical healings, such as the healing of the man with leprosy in Mark 1:40-45: “He reached out his hand and touched the man […] Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed.” Therefore, such a definition is accepted by a religious believer.
(Ev5) This is a strong point as Holland’s definition removes objectivity since defining an event as a miracles rests solely on the individual. Holland can therefore be accused of holding a position that is unverifiable. Ayer regarded metaphysicians as being “devoted to the production of nonsense” as there is no way of asserting the truth or falsehood of religious propositions, such as miracles. (L5) Therefore, Holland’s definition is inadequate in comparison to Aquinas’.
(P6) Hume defines a miracle as “a violation of natural law.” It breaks our regular experience of nature and demands intervention by God or a supernatural agent.
(Ex6) C. S. Lewis argued that God is interactive and, even today, continues to introduce new laws of nature: Lewis advocates “nature behaves in accordance to fixed laws, and that a miracle is God introducing a new law.” Lewis argues God performs miracles to remind us of his omnipotent, predestining nature as the creator and controller of natural laws. Jeremiah 32:27 states “I am the LORD, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?”.
(R6) In response to this however, naturalists (those who reject the supernatural) would argue against this definition of a miracle. They suggest that no law of nature has been broken: we simply had an incomplete law. Even Hume suggests a religious believer may know the falsehood of miracles but due to vested interest and bias, “perseveres in it, with the best intentions in the world, for the sake of promoting so holy a cause.” This easily account for delusions about miracles as Hume argued that religious people have a psychological need to believe in miracles: “A religionist may imagine he sees what has no reality.”
(Ev6) This is a strong point as Freud argues against miracles from human psychology: he advocated that religious beliefs were a “universal obsessional neurosis of humanity”, which sprung from psychological imbalances and people’s deep-rooted insecurity. (L6) Therefore, Hume’s definition is inadequate as it seems to be contradictory for religious believers and their subjective experiences.
(P7) Richard Swinburne endorses Hume’s definition and accepts a miracle is an objective event in which God intervened due to his omnipotent nature. He uses the phrase “an occurrence of a non-repeatable counter-instance to a law of nature” to describe a miracle. Therefore, this sense of universality in definition makes it adequate.
(Ex7) He meant that given a law in nature, an event happens: it is not possible that the event could be predicted by replacing the law with a more successful one.
(R7) In response to this however, Hume defines a miracle as ‘soft’: it sees natural laws not as fixed and unalterable, but laws which entail exceptions. They are regular patterns of events that can be altered by the intervention of God. This makes miracles about the credibility of the evidence for the altered law as opposed to the logical impossibility of a miracle. Hume said “nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happens in the common course of nature.”
(Ev7) This is a weak point however, as saying that laws of nature can be violated seems contrary to the scientific understanding of the universe that is mechanistic, orderly and regular. Although, the development of quantum physics has challenged this mechanistic understanding of the universe in favour of unpredictability. Bertrant Russel said “the physicists argue that individual quantum transition in atoms has no cause.” (L7) Therefore, Hume’s definition is adequate as it is compatible with contemporary scientific theories.
(P8) IN CONCLUSION, Aquinas displays a miracle as God doing something which nature could never do: God made a shadow move backwards as a sign to Hezekiah in Isaiah 38:7-8.
(Ex8) Isaiah 38:8 states “The sun made a shadow that went down the stairway of Ahaz’s upper palace.”
(R8) In response to this however, this definition portrays God as an interventionist God rather than a sustainer: this failure to prevent evil and suffering would discredit God’s omnibenevolence as most miracles are trivial and events such as the Holocaust had no intervention. D Z Phillips said “If God is this kind of agent, He cannot justify actions and His evil nature is revealed.”
(Ev8) This is a strong point as God has the omnipotence and motivation (love) to eliminate suffering, yet evil is so tangible in its effects and scope that denial of its existence is nonsensical. Thus, any God who deliberately tolerates evil and horrendous suffering, and does not intervene with a miracle in such a circumstance, is anathema to the very idea of omnibenevolence, causing people to reject God. Stephen Fry said “The God who made this universe, if it was created by God is quite clearly a maniac.” (L8) Therefore, Aquinas’ definition of a miracle is not adequate.
