Transcript Resource PowerPoint 1: Miracles

MIRACLES
1d: Miracles
CONCEPTUAL CLARITY


Because of the way the term ‘miracle’ can
be variously used, it is important to agree
on which sense is being deployed.
One of the most helpful definitions (pace
Hume) is this one: “A miracle is an
extraordinary and striking event, intended
by God to be a special disclosure of his
power and purpose.”
CONCEPTUAL CLARITY - 2

Of course this definition presupposes a
number of things:



That there is a God
That this God acts in the world
That there is a purpose to miraculous events
HUME’S APPROACH
Hume defines ‘miracle’ in relation
to the Enlightenment conviction
that the universe runs according
to so-called Laws of Nature:
“A miracle is a violation of the laws
of nature”
 Note that this restricts the class of
events labelled ‘miracle’ to a
smaller set than that allowed for in
the first (non-Humean) definition.

HUME’S APPROACH - 2
This has dominated the discussion
in the literature and until the advent
of Wiles’ contribution, Hume’s has
set the agenda for the standard
lines of debate.
Note that for him miracles are not
impossible. His argument concludes
that we would have to regard any
report of them as incredible.
LAWS OF NATURE


What precisely do we mean by Laws of Nature?
Mike Poole makes an interesting distinction
between Laws of Nature and Scientific Laws. His
point is that science has always a provisional
understanding. Our current formulation of our
belief in a particular regularity in the way the
universe appears to behave, according to our
investigations so far, is not necessarily equivalent
to either how the universe actually is, or how the
universe has to be, at all times and in all places.
LAWS OF NATURE - 2


The key question, reflecting a key belief in the
inviolability of the laws of nature, is whether there
are actual exceptions to the so-called laws.
The theologian and physicist John Polkinghorne
wrote, “Science simply tells us that these events are
against normal expectations … The theological
question is: does it make sense to suppose that God
has acted in a new way? … In unprecedented
circumstances, God can do unexpected things.”
(Quarks, Chaos and Christianity, London, Triangle,
1994,82)
BIBLICAL ‘MIRACLES’



[1]
Discussions in the Philosophy of Religion have a
tendency to allow the miracles agenda to be set
by philosophical writings, not least the classic
discussion of Hume.
This results in focussing on miracles as violations
of so-called ‘laws of nature’.
The Biblical tradition predates scientific ways of
talking about the world and what we translate as
‘miracle’ had a different focus for the writers and
readers of Biblical material.
BIBLICAL ‘MIRACLES’

[2]
In the New Testament the three terms we tend to translate
into ‘miracle’ in English are:




Semeion – a ‘sign’ (focus on the purpose)
Teras – a ‘wonder’ (focus on the effect)
Dunamis – an ‘act of power’ (focus on cause)
Acts 2:22 “..Jesus..was a man accredited by God to you by miracles
(dunamesi), wonders (terasi) and signs (semeiois).. which God did
through him.. as you yourselves know.”
The emphasis here is on the significance of the event; its impact on
those who witnessed it. Notice that some Biblical miracles will not fit
into the category of what we would call violations of laws of nature.
BIBLICAL ‘MIRACLES’
[3]
One typical classification is as follows:




Miracles of nature – eg. Jesus stilling the storm
on Galilee [Mk 4:35-41]
Miracles of healing – eg. Woman with a
haemorrhage [Mk 5:25-34]
Miracles of exorcism – eg. Legion [Mk 5:9-20]
Miracles of timing – eg. Red Sea [Ex 14:21f]
BIBLICAL ‘MIRACLES’
Amazing events
attributed to God
Violations of laws of nature
Vng
Violations not due to
God
[4]
Vg
Violations
- due to God
NVg
Not
Violations due to God
BIBLICAL ‘MIRACLES’
[5]
Regarding Vng - which we defined as violations of laws of nature
that were not due to God, there is some debate. Some consider that
only God can do miracles and so Vng is an empty set. Others point
out that Hume’s definition of a miracle includes not only God as a
possible agent, but also ‘the interposition of some (other) invisible
agent’. The Biblical tradition allows for candidates to be included in
Vng, such as The Beast of the Earth (Rev 13:13f) and the False
Prophet (Rev 19:20). Jesus himself speaks of evildoers who will do
mighty works (Matt 7:22).
BIBLICAL ‘MIRACLES’
Amazing events
attributed to God
Violations of laws of nature
Concentrating on the
discussion of what it
means to talk about
miracles that God might
do, if we exclude from
our discussion agents
other than God, then we
can redraw the diagram
like this:
[6]
Vg
NVg
EMPIRICISM AND RATIONALISM
Historically, these are two distinct major schools of
philosophy whose approach to the question of
miracles should differ because of their presuppositions
about what counts as valid knowledge.
Descartes
Spinoza
Rationalists
Locke
Hume
Empiricists
EMPIRICISM AND RATIONALISM


You would expect that empiricists, with
their emphasis on the importance of sense
data as evidence, would be interested in
whether or not you can establish whether
a miracle has actually taken place.
Rationalists may be expected to have
decided beforehand whether or not
miracles are possible.
WORLDVIEWS


[1]
All of us have a worldview. We believe certain
things about God, Life, the Universe - Everything.
These beliefs shape our approach to all
questions, including miracles.
Major worldviews include:





THEISM
ATHEISM
DEISM
PANTHEISM
PANENTHEISM
WORLDVIEWS

[2]
THEISM is a cluster of beliefs which Robert Flint summarises
as “the doctrine that the universe owes its existence, and

continuation in existence, to the reason and will of a self-existent
Being, who is infinitely powerful, wise and good.”
Theism believes therefore that God is both transcendent (beyond
the reach or apprehension of experience; the Otherness or
Beyondness of God) and immanent (near to and indwelling the
world; the Closeness of God). God is the Creator and Sustainer
of the Universe, involved in it moment by moment.
WORLDVIEWS

[3]
ATHEISM is the denial of Theism. Simply put, there
is no God. There are no supernatural beings. Nature is
all there is. The universe is impersonal and has no
inherent purpose or purposer. Many prefer the term
Naturalism to Atheism. I is seen as a positive
affirmation of what exists, rather than a denial of what
does not exist. Some have recently adopted the
neologism zerotheist as a synonym for atheist.
WORLDVIEWS

[4]
DEISM is the view that God is wholly transcendent.
God the Creator is external to the universe He has
created. Since that point He has not been involved in
His creation. God is effectively an absentee landlord
who has given the Universe autonomy. This implies
that the Laws of Nature that govern the universe are
fixed and God does not override them. Those kinds of
miracles do not happen in a deistic world. God does
not interfere. God is only revealed in the normal course
of nature and history.
WORLDVIEWS

[5]
PANTHEISM is the view that God is wholly immanent. God is
essentially identical to Nature. Etymologically ‘God is all’ (Greek,
pan, all; theos, God). Although the term pantheism was not
invented until the early 18th cc, it represents a belief that has
been around for a long time. It is hinted at in the writing of the
Greek thinker Parmenides (ca. 500 BC) and in the East it is
anticipated in the early Upanishads some two hundred years
earlier. The first modern to articulate an essentially pantheistic
view is possibly Spinoza. For him there is only one substance,
‘absolutely infinite being’. We may speak of either ‘God’ or
‘Nature’ interchangeably.
WORLDVIEWS

[6]
PANENTHEISM is the worldview that features in
number of modern discussions about the relationship
of God to the world. Panentheism is the belief that God
is in (Greek, en) all created things. The analogy has
been suggested that in the same way that you can
differentiate between the water and the sponge in a
saturated sponge, panentheism allows you to
differentiate between the world and God. The world is
in God (panentheism) but not to be identified with God
(pantheism).
WORLDVIEWS





[7]
All of us have a worldview.
How might our worldview affect our approach to
miracles?
Will it prejudge the issue?
How will our worldview affect our assessment of
evidence for miracles?
Can all worldviews accommodate the insights of
modern science?
A PRIORI REJECTIONS
Spinoza is a good example of a thinker who made his mind
up about the possibility of miracles without reference to
any relevant empirical evidence. His presuppositions were
those of a rationalist and a pantheist. As a rationalist, he
accepted as true only what he saw as self evident. As a
pantheist, God’s activity was no more than nature’s regular
activity. His argument boils down to a dogmatic assertion:
1.
Miracles are violations of laws of nature
2.
Natural laws are immutable
3.
Therefore, miracles are impossible
IS MIRACLE AS A SUSPENSION OF A
NATURAL LAW SELF-CONTRADICTORY?
Consider this extract from Alistair McKinnon’s Miracle and
Paradox, American Philosophical Quarterly 4 (1997):
“The idea of a suspension of natural law is selfcontradictory. This follows from the meaning of the term
… Natural laws bear no relation to civil codes … They are
simply highly generalised shorthand descriptions of how
things do in fact happen … Hence there can be no
suspensions of natural law rightly understood. Or …
Miracle contains a contradiction in terms.”
Is McKinnon’s argument right?
SURELY IT IS INCREDIBLE TO BELIEVE
IN MIRACLES IN AN AGE OF SCIENCE!
Consider this letter posted in THE TIMES on 13 July 1984 by 14
UK professors of science:
“It is not logically valid to use science as an argument against
miracles. To believe that miracles cannot happen is as much an
act of faith as to believe that they can happen. We gladly
accept the virgin birth, the gospel miracles, and the
resurrection of Christ as historical events … miracles are
unprecedented events … science (based as it is upon the
observation of precedents) can have nothing to say on the
subject. It’s ‘laws’ are only generalisations of our experience.”
A CLOSER LOOK AT HUME
Recall Hume’s definition of a miracle:
“A transgression of a law of nature by a
particular violation of the Deity, or by the
imposition of some invisible agent.”
A CLOSER LOOK AT HUME - 2
[a]
[b]
In the balance for rational
human beings according to
Hume is:
[a] The improbability of
miracle(s)
[b] The evidence that they
have occurred.
“The wise man, proportioning his belief to the evidence, will
always conclude that it is more likely that natural laws have held
good than that a miracle has occurred.”
A CLOSER LOOK AT HUME - 3
Vardy paraphrases Hume’s argument:
“A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. A
miracle is a violation of the laws of nature and is
therefore an event which past human experience is
uniformly against. This in itself makes it overwhelmingly
probable that the miracle did not occur, unless the
testimony to its occurrence is of such superlative quality
that it can be seriously be weighed against our own
uniform past experience”
(The Puzzle of God, Fount, 1990, 184)
A CLOSER LOOK AT HUME - 4
“In fact, however, the testimony to miracles is not of this
character at all. The standard of the witnesses to miracles is
not high. The human capacity for accepting or believing the
unlikely has all too probably been at work, the stories of
miracles deriving from ‘ignorant and barbarous places and
nations’ and, in any case, the miracle stories of different
religions contradict one another. Consequently testimony to
miracles can never establish them so that one could proceed
from a proper assurance that they occurred to infer some
theistic conclusions.”
A CLOSER LOOK AT HUME - 5
Some critical remarks
?
1. Are laws of nature set in stone as Hume seems to suggest?
The history of science shows that our understanding is
always provisional. The key question here is not about
particular historical formulations of laws, but lawlikeness as
a general belief. Is the methodological assumption about
laws tied to metaphysical beliefs about laws. For a
naturalist – yes. For a theist – not necessarily; God may
not be bound by his regular way of running the universe.
Hume’s generally anti-inductivist stance could allow for
exceptions, if God did in fact act ‘against’ normal ‘laws’.
A CLOSER LOOK AT HUME - 6
Some critical remarks
?
2. Hume’s discussion only deals with reports of
miracles. What if Hume had experienced a
miracle himself. Might he believe it as a
trustworthy, intelligent, educated, neutral,
informed and civilized individual?
Is it Hume’s inherent scepticism, or poverty of
religious experience, or both, that matter here?
A CLOSER LOOK AT HUME - 7
Some critical remarks
?
3. Today’s reports of miracles are often subject to
scientific scrutiny. Many appear to be incapable
of being explained by normal scientific means.
Whilst not wishing to fall into the trap of Godof-the-gaps thinking (attributing to God what
we currently cannot explain), this does seem to
keep open the door for miracles as violations of
laws of nature. This seems to many to
overcome some of the Humean difficulties.
A CLOSER LOOK AT HUME - 8
Some critical remarks
?
4. Whilst neither Judaism, Christianity or Islam relies on miracles as the
(only) basis of belief they do claim that there are pivotal occasions when
God acts in unusual ways. Not that miracles are done to order (eg. Jesus
rebuttal of Satan’s temptations (Mt chapter 4); “an evil generation…seeks
a sign” (Mt 16:4). So, if you already believe that God exists, it is rational
to believe God acts miraculously. There are of course serious questions
about the significance of these reported events and what they say about
other religious truth claims. Hume’s claim that miracles in different
religions cancel each other out is contentious and certainly doesn’t allow
for “the complete triumph of the sceptic” as he claims.
Other critical lines of response to Hume
(Davies Philosophy of Religion: a guide and anthology, Oxford, 2000, p401)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Is it true that we should only believe that for
which we have personal evidence?
Is it true that reports of miracles only come from
dubiously reliable sources?
Does the fact that reports of miracles come from
people who have conflicting beliefs mean that
none of these reports should be taken seriously?
Are miracles as intrinsically improbable as Hume
makes them out to be?
A.E.Taylor on Hume
In “David Hume and the miraculous”,
Philosophical Studies, Macmillan, 1934,
A.E.Taylor famously argues that Hume’s
conclusion can only urge us not to believe in
second hand reports of miracles – not that
miracles cannot occur, or that anyone who
witnesses one for himself ought to refuse to
believe the evidence of his senses.
A.E.Taylor on Hume
“It is quietly forgotten [by Hume] that, on the premises, there cannot be
said to be ‘uniform experience’ against the resurrection of a dead man or
any other sequence of events. At best I have only a uniformity within the
range of my own experience to urge; a narrator who professes to have seen
the resuscitation of actually appealing to his own experience as the
foundation of the story. Thus, unless I am to assume that my own personal
experiences are the standard of the credible – and if I do assume this, there
is an end to all correction of expectations – it is a petitio principii [ a
begging of the question] to say that there is ‘uniform experience’ against
any event to which any man claims to be able to testify”.
Ch9, p336
Keith Ward on Hume
In his book ‘Divine Action’ (Collins, 1990) Ward makes the point that
Hume cites in his own critique of miracles a number of examples
which seem to show that his own rejection seems irrational on his
own terms. Hume’s four reasons for confidently discounting all claims
to miracles are:
[1] No miracle is attested to by sufficient people of education and
integrity to give us complete confidence in the stories.
[2] People invent stories and exaggerate them because of a love of
the curious and marvellous. These tales cannot be trusted.
[3] Claims to the miraculous “are observed chiefly to abound among
ignorant and barbarous nations”.
[4] The diverse miracle claims from different religions are
contradictory and thus rendered null and void.
Keith Ward on Hume
Ward writes (p188), “Strangely, Hume himself destroys these arguments by
citing a number of cases of strong testimony to miracles, including one
wherein judges of unquestioned integrity, in a learned country (France)
testified to healing miracles at the tomb of Abbé Paris. He then says, “What
have we to oppose to such a cloud of witnesses, but the absolute
impossibility … of the events which they relate?” If that is all that he has to
oppose to such testimony, and if miracles are not absolutely impossible at
all, then it turns out that it is Hume, not his opponents, who is irrational in
not taking such evidence much more seriously than he did.”
EXAMPLES OF MIRACLES:
contemporary ‘violations of laws of nature’

It is an interesting exercise to subject
reports of miracles, including contemporary
ones, to the critique offered by Hume.




Do they stand up to scrutiny?
Are they empirically verifiable?
Do the witnesses have credibility?
Do the ‘events’ fit into my worldview?
MAURICE WILES
a moral objection to miracles
In his 1986 SCM book of his Bampton Lectures, God’s action in
the world, Wiles claimed that there is only one act of God
encompassing the world as a whole. Wiles says that God never
intervenes in the world by individual acts. He says that even if
God did miracles, understood as interventions, they would be
rare and should not be relatively arbitrary or trivial. But given
that God appears not to have been concerned enough to stop
major atrocities, miracles as reported infer a strange and
debased idea of God, not worthy of our worship!
MAURICE WILES
Qu ickT ime ™ a nd a
TIF F (U nco mpre sse d) de com pres sor
are nee ded to s ee th is pi cture .
Thus Wiles is raising a moral objection to the
notion of a God whose miraculous interventions
are seemingly arbitrary and focussed on relatively
trivial matters. He also doubts, along with Brian
Hebblethwaite, that miracles are consistent with a
mature response to the problem of evil. This
requires that God maintains the stable structures
of creation, and also thereby answers the question
of why God does not do more to alleviate suffering
if he is able to do so.
MAURICE WILES
Wiles and other theologians assume that we can
rationally understand the ways of God – operating
within the Kantian tradition of “religion within the
limits of reason alone.” Vardy points to Paul’s
preaching of “Christ crucified … foolishness to the
Greeks (philosophers, see 1 Corinthians chapter 1)”,
and suggests that God is beyond our apprehension
and is irreducible to human constructs, at least in
significant measure.
MAURICE WILES & DAVID HUME



What would Wiles make of any well supported
evidence that a miracle had occurred?
Would his theoretical objection cause him to
refuse to admit the evidence?
In what way is Wiles’s objection to miracles
similar to that of Hume and in what ways is it
different?