Transcript Document

Proof of God?
Inquiries into the Philosophy of Religion
A Concise Introduction
Chapter 11
Supernatural Events
By
Glenn Rogers, Ph.D.
Copyright
©
2012
Glenn Rogers
Proof of God?
Supernatural Events
What Are Supernatural Events
A supernatural event is an event that happens because it was
specifically caused by God and is not what would normally
happen had not God acted as he did.
A supernatural event is seen in direct contrast to a natural event
that happens because of the “laws” of physics, that is, the way
things normally happen because of the physical rules by which
the universe operates. The term most often used for this kind of
an event is miracle.
I prefer the term supernatural event, because it plays off the
contrast between natural and supernatural events.
Proof of God?
Supernatural Events
What Are Supernatural Events
A baby being conceived and born is a natural event. An apple
ripening and falling to the ground is a natural event. The rotation of
the earth, the tides of the oceans, the blowing of the wind, and aging
are all natural events. They happen because the rules of physics are
as they are and work the way they work.
In contrast to such natural events are supernatural events. A person
walking on water is a supernatural event. A person who has been
dead for three days coming back to life is a supernatural event. A
person who had been blind for forty years suddenly being able to see
without medical intervention is a supernatural event.
These and dozens of other examples that could be suggested are
events that do not and can not happen according to the normal
workings of the rules of physics.
Proof of God?
Supernatural Events
What Are Supernatural Events
Hume preferred different language. He defined a miracle as “a
violation of the laws of nature.
J. L. Mackie follows Hume in defining miracles as “violations of
the laws of nature.
Richard Swinburne, however, asks what the phrase law of
nature means and whether or not a law of nature can be
violated?
For me, the idea of laws of nature that have been established
and cannot or ought not be violated simply feels wrong.
Proof of God?
Supernatural Events
What Are Supernatural Events
I refer to the rules of physics in the sense of the way things
normally work. The laws of nature, however, sound like
something someone voted on and passed, laws that ought not
be broken.
Yet if the idea of laws of nature is valid, then if miracles occur,
laws are being broken. Sounds scandalous. Who broke the
laws of nature? Form a posse. We must put a stop to these
violations!
Proof of God?
Supernatural Events
Do Supernatural Events Occur
Whether one calls them miracles or supernatural events the more
important question is, do they happen? Generally, those who
believe that God exists would say, yes, and those who deny the
existence of God would say, no.
The basic question is, can the “laws” of nature be suspended so
that something that would not otherwise happen can happen?
Some say, no.
Why not? If one is working out of a materialist paradigm then
certainly the suspension of normal physical operations is
problematic. However, if one is working out of a theistic paradigm
the occasional, momentary suspension of a given physical
operation is not problematic.
Proof of God?
Supernatural Events
Hume On Supernatural Events
In his work, Of Miracles, Hume raises some questions regarding
miracles that, to some, appear to be difficult and disturbing
questions. I’m not convinced his questions are all that
challenging.
In Of Miracles, Part 1, Hume says, “…there is no species of
reasoning more common, more useful, and even necessary to
human life, than that which is derived from the testimony of
men, and the reports of eye-witnesses and spectators.” Hume
is right.
Proof of God?
Supernatural Events
Hume On Supernatural Events
But then Hume goes on to argue that though we do place such
importance on personal testimony, if we were to be confronted with
a personal testimony, an eye-witness account, of an event that was
what we considered unbelievable, we should not believe it.
His position is, if a given testimony is about an alleged event, an
event that I believe is impossible, then I must not accept the
testimony, regardless of how trustworthy the witness might
otherwise be.
Hume believes that the evidence suggests that miracles simply
cannot happen. So even if an otherwise trustworthy witness
provides testimony regarding a supernatural event, that witness is
not to be believed.
Proof of God?
Supernatural Events
Hume On Supernatural Events
A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience
has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the
fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it
more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain
suspended in the air, that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it
be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required
a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is
esteemed a miracle, if it ever happened in the common course of nature. It is no
miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such
a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently
observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because
that has never been observed, in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a
uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not
merit the appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a
direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle;
nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered credible, but by an
opposite proof, which is superior.
Proof of God?
Supernatural Events
Hume On Supernatural Events
It may be necessary to read Hume’s comment two or three times
to get precisely what Hume is saying, but when his argument is
clearly understood its weakness is apparent. Hume’s argument
can be summarized as follows:
1. A miracle is a violation of one of the laws of nature.
2. A “law” of nature is such that things must happen
to that law.
according
3. The very idea of a violation of a law of nature is contradictory.
(If the “law” of gravity says that lead cannot suspend itself in the
air, then it cannot. A natural law cannot be violated.)
Proof of God?
Supernatural Events
Hume On Supernatural Events
4. A miracle is a miracle only if it is a violation of one of the laws
of nature. If something happens that is not a violation of one of
the laws of nature then it is not a miracle.
5. Since a miracle is a violation of one of the laws of nature and
since the laws of nature cannot be violated, there is no such
thing as a miracle.
6. Therefore, miracles do not happen.
Even more briefly, the argument is: miracles cannot occur
because a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature and the
laws of nature, by definition, cannot be violated. Thus, no
miracles can occur.
Is this a sound argument?
Proof of God?
Supernatural Events
Hume On Supernatural Events
The problem with Hume’s argument is in premise 3, the assumption
that the “laws” of nature cannot be “violated” or momentarily set aside
so that something that could not otherwise happen can happen. Why
would Hume or anyone else make that assumption? Of course, it is
easy to see that his argument is deeply rooted in the language…
violations of the laws of nature.
The simple reality is that there is a regularity that is present in the
physical cosmos. Things work the way they work. We observe and
discover and discuss in terms of rules and laws. There is no problem
doing that. But to assume that because we discuss these regularities
in terms of rules or laws that there is no power or force that can
momentarily, in specific instances, set them aside so that something
that would not otherwise happen can happen is an unfounded
assumption.
Proof of God?
Supernatural Events
Hume On Supernatural Events
But Hume is not yet finished with his presentation regarding how one
responds to the testimony of individuals claiming to have witnessed
miraculous events. He explains:
The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), ‘That no
testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind,
that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to
establish: And even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the
superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains,
after deducting the inferior.’ When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored
to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this
person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should
really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the
superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater
miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event
which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or
opinion.
Proof of God?
Supernatural Events
Hume On Supernatural Events
What is Hume saying here? He’s saying that anyone who tells
him (Hume) that he witnessed a miracle will be considered
either: 1) a liar, or 2) someone who was fooled into believing
something that is, in fact, a lie.
Hume is saying that for all intents and purposes, no one can
convince him that he or she witnessed a miraculous event. His
mind is made up and will not be changed.
That doesn’t sound quite right, does it? Hume is saying that
based on his definition of miracle, he cannot be convinced, no
matter what, that one has occurred. So much for scholarly
open-mindedness.
Proof of God?
Supernatural Events
Hume On Supernatural Events
In part 2 of his short treaties, Of Miracles, Hume insists that:
…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, as to secure us
against all delusion in themselves; of such undoubted integrity; as to place them
beyond all suspicion and any design to deceive others.
Hume is of the opinion that all the miracles that are reported, and he is
obviously thinking of those in the Bible as well as others, that the
people who testify to them are either: 1) people who do not have good
sense or are uneducated, or 2) are people of questionable integrity
who, therefore, are probably lying.
Hume is so positive that miracles cannot happen that he is making an
astonishing accusation: that Jesus’ followers, Peter, Matthew, John,
Luke, Mark and others, are either dimwits or liars.
Proof of God?
Supernatural Events
The Most Serious Issue Regarding Supernatural Events
Hume’s challenges are relatively easy to deal with.
A much more difficult concern as it relates to supernatural
events is the difficulty (for the average person) in discerning the
difference between a genuine miracle and a natural event.
We often hear people refer to the miracle of birth. Yet
procreation, conception and birth, is an entirely natural process
that can be explained scientifically every step of the way. There
is nothing supernatural about it. It may be an amazing process
but it is not a miracle.
Proof of God?
Supernatural Events
The Most Serious Issue Regarding Supernatural Events
Before the discovery of penicillin (say 300 years ago) people
who witnessed a person swallowing a small white pill and, a
few days later, recovering from an illness that normally resulted
in death might have concluded that they had witnessed a
miracle. With greater scientific insight we are aware, however,
that there is a natural process at work where penicillin is
involved (as well as with thousands of other drugs) and that no
supernatural event occurred.
How would one go about establishing that a legitimate
supernatural event had occurred? That is not an easy question
to answer. Part of the difficulty lies in the fact that we do not
know how much we don’t know.
Proof of God?
Supernatural Events
The Most Serious Issue Regarding Supernatural Events
All we can really say, then, in answer to the question, how
would one go about establishing that a legitimate supernatural
event had occurred, is that we should identify an event as
supernatural only if we are certain that there cannot be any
naturalistic explanation for the event.
Proof of God?
Supernatural Events
What Are The Implications Of Supernatural Events
What are the implications of supernatural events? The
implications are clear. If there are supernatural events, there is
a supernatural presence that is responsible for causing them.
This obvious implication is why some thinkers, such as Hume
and others who embrace materialism, have expended
significant efforts attempting to demonstrate that supernatural
events cannot occur. None of them have succeeded for one
simple reason: there are simply too many accounts of
supernatural events, presented by responsible, credible,
trustworthy people, to be ignored.
Supernatural events occur because God exists.