miracles/religious experience

Question 1

miracles/religious experience (10)

Answer 1

(1) miracles (general)

(2) aquinas (definition)

(3) hume (definition)

(4) r.f. holland (definition)

(5) swinburne (definition)

(6) support for belief in miracles

(7) challenges to belief in miracles

(8) david hume + challenges (general)

(9) hume challenge 1 (+swinburne’s response)

(10) hume challenge 2 (+swinburne’s response)

(11) criticism of hume’s challenges

Question 2

(1) miracles (general)

Answer 2

• ‘miraculum‘/wonder
• Ms subjective; 3 (against reg occurence, significant, ascribe religious significance)
• G: omnib, omnip, omnis; montgomery

Question 3

(2) aquinas (definition)

Answer 3

• ‘a violation miracle’; only G can perform, bc ‘un-created’; Ms beneficial to recipient
• 3: G did/nature can’t; G did/N can but not in this order; G did without workings of N
• G as primary cause (direct intervention) vs G as secondary cause (human agents)

Question 4

(3) hume (definition)

Answer 4

• M: violation of LofN
• G violates LofN/intervenes via external agent, expresses divine cause
• H> Hard: LofN hard/fixed; if broken, merely misstated LofN
• H> Soft: LofN have exceptions/’could’, but proving is impossible

Question 5

(4) r.f. holland (definition)

Answer 5

• 1920/’a contingency miracle’; coincidence interpreted as miracle = a miracle
• interpretation/subj, Ms valid irrespective of LofN

Question 6

(5) swinburne (definition)

Answer 6

• 1934/’a violation miracle’; supports H, replaced phrase—’violation of LofN’:
• ‘an occurrence of a non-repeatable counter-instance to a LofN’
• S> Ms must contribute to religious ends+quick timescale; not violate FW

Question 7

(6) support for belief in miracles

Answer 7

• sacred texts; Genesis, Exodus
• witnesses ought to be respected/nature of M is to be exceptional
• LofN may be fluid; LofN descriptive, not prescriptive (broad, polkinghorne, pannenberg)

Question 8

(7) challenges to belief in miracles

Answer 8

• can’t be cross-checked; projection; subjective (becker, hick, vardy)

Question 9

(8) david hume + challenges (general)

Answer 9

• classical, empiricist, a posteriori, LofN

Question 10

(9) hume challenge 1 (+swinburne’s response)

Answer 10

• H> Ms impossible to prove, but not inherently impossible; never enough evidence (atkins, hick, moore, dawkins)
• S^> trust witnesses/‘principle of evidentiality’/until proven untrustworthy

Question 11

(10) hume challenge 2 (+swinburne’s response)

Answer 11

• lack of reliable testimony; subj/bias; lacks empiricism/rational inquiry/conflicting claims (angels, ross, , atkins, howard)
• S^>standards too high/Ms reported internationally (Buddha, Daosim, Muslim)
• H> only valid thing is Ms conflict/are incompatible

Question 12

(11) criticism of hume’s challenges

Answer 12

• claims+corroborated physical evidence (davies)
• miracles may support other miracles (howard)
• polkinghorne, swinburne