MIRACLES: Hume V Wiles

Question 1

God’s intervention

Answer 1

Hume is an atheist so assumes there is no God to violate natural laws
Wiles is a Christian so assumes there is a God who chooses not to intervene

Question 2

Hume on the irrationality of miracles

Answer 2

Hume assumes that Christianity is irrational. A believer is required to believe in miracles but these are the least likely of all events

Question 3

Wiles on Hume’s interventionist account of miracles

Answer 3

God can be understood in ways that don’t require Him to be selectively active in the world in the way Hume’s violation approach to miracles suggests

Question 4

Hume on accounts of miracles

Answer 4

Hume assumes that accounts of miracles in the Bible and elsewhere are literal descriptions of (false) facts

Question 5

Wiles on accounts of miracles

Answer 5

Wiles uses biblical criticism to point out that much of the text is not literal, but symbolic and mythological

Question 6

Wiles on evidence for miracles

Answer 6

Wiles seeks to shift the argument away from Hume’s question on the evidence for whether an event can be explained in natural terms to one in which an event reveals something of God’s intention for the world

Question 7

Advantage of Wiles’ anti-realist approach

Answer 7

There are no divine actions in the world that violate natural laws so Wiles doesn’t have to explain how natural laws can be violated

Question 8

The ineffectiveness of Hume

Answer 8

Hume doesn’t touch on the personal and religious elements in miracles; he focuses on whether an event is a violation of nature