MIRACLES

1
MIRACLES

• Adrian Brown

2
What is required on the syllabus?

• AQA 15.2 Miracles
• Concepts of miracle, laws of nature and
  interventionist God. Challenges to belief in
  miracles from philosophy, with particular
  reference to David Hume, and from scientific
  explanations.
• Religious responses to these challenges.
• Picked up in other areas such as religious
  experience and New Testament studies.

3
What is required on the syllabus?

• OCR
• The concept of miracle and the criticisms made
  by Hume and Wiles.

4
References to standard A-level texts

• It seems clear from the shape of the OCR syllabus
  that Vardys The Puzzle of God has been a major
  resource in their planning, not least because it
  is the place where Wiles is fully discussed at
  this level.
• So it is worth having a closer look at the way in
  which Vardy deals with the topic. I will comment
  on what he doesnt say (and should) later!

5
Some non-standard A-level resources

• Dialogue magazine has carried helpful articles
  accessible to A-level no 4, Apr 95, Hume on
  Miracles no 10 Apr 98, Rationalism Empiricism
  no 11, Nov 98, Miracles no 13, Dec 99 Miracles
  
• At a more basic level, but excellent on Miracles
  and Laws of Science is Mike Pooles A Guide to
  Science and Belief, Lion, 1997, ch.5
• Do not overlook web resources, some of which are
  now written specifically for A-level, for
  example www.colfox.dorset.sch.uk/alevelre/
• There is an excellent section including a fine
  introduction and selected classic articles in
  Brian Davies, Philosophy of Religion a guide and
  anthology, Oxford, 2000, p397-437.
• A particular favourite of mine is the 1982
  Zondervan book by Norman Geisler, Miracles and
  Modern Thought.
• A significant omission from his references is
  Colin Browns Miracles and the Critical Mind,
  Eerdmans/Paternoster, 1984.
• An excellent recent article is Terence
  Penelhums The Paranormal, miracles and David
  Hume, in Think Spring 2003

6
References to standard A-level texts
7
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.

8
HUMES APPROACH

• This has dominated the discussion in the
  literature and until the advent of Wiles
  contribution, Humes 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.

9
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.

10
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.

11
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 222 ..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.

12
BIBLICAL MIRACLES 2

• One helpful classification is as follows
• Miracles of nature eg. Jesus stilling the storm
  on Galilee Mk 435-41
• Miracles of healing eg. Woman with a
  haemorrhage Mk 525-34
• Miracles of exorcism eg. Legion Mk 59-20
• Miracles of timing eg. Red Sea Ex 1421f

13
BIBLICAL MIRACLES 3
Amazing events attributed to God
Violations of laws of nature
Vng?
Vg
NVg
14
BIBLICAL MIRACLES 4
Amazing events attributed to God
Violations of laws of nature
Given that no-one has seriously suggested that
there are other agents than God who can violate
laws of nature, we should perhaps redraw the
diagram like this
Vg
NVg
15
EXAMPLES OF MIRACLES contemporary violations
of laws of nature

• 1 Rice is not conserved in Olivenza
• 2 Korean healing miracles
• 3 Teeth filled in Chile
• 4 Welsh RS teachers hearing restored
• 5 Sri Lankan leg shrinkage

16
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, Gods activity was no
  more than natures regular activity. His argument
  boils down to a dogmatic assertion
• Miracles are violations of laws of nature
• Natural laws are immutable
• Therefore, miracles are impossible

17
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
Locke Hume
Empiricists
Rationalists
18
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.
  

19
IS MIRACLE AS A SUSPENSION OF A NATURAL LAW
SELF-CONTRADICTORY?

• Consider this extract from Alistair McKinnons
  Miracle and Paradox, American Philosophical
  Quarterly 4 (1997)
• The idea of a supension of natural law is
  self-contradictory. 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 McKinnons argument right?

20
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. Its laws are only generalisations of
  our experience.

21
Vardys discussion
1 VARIOUS DEFINITIONS - 1

• 1 A miracle is a change for the better that can
  take place in a person in even the most unlikely
  situation.
• 2 A miracle is an event or occurrence which the
  believer considers to have religious
  significance, even though it is not in fact due
  to a creator God.
• 4 A miracle is an event which happens against
  the laws of nature, and which is brought about by
  the action of the everlasting and timeless God.
  

22
Vardys discussion
2 VARIOUS DEFINITIONS - 2

• 3 A miracle is an event caused by the action of
  an everlasting and timeless God. The event is
  either in accordance with the normal laws of
  nature, or else brought about by a human being,
  in which case God will be the primary cause
  whilst the person will be the secondary cause.
• Vardy makes the point that we are assuming in
  the discussion that we are talking about God who
  can act or intervene in the world he has created.

23
Vardys discussion
3 MIRACLE AS A CHANGE FOR THE BETTER
IN A PERSON?

• Vardy cites Alyoshas transformation in
  Dostoyevskys The Brothers Karamazov as an
  example of what Sutherland sees as a true
  miracle.
• (But) this use of miracle doesnt demand a
  creator God.

24
Vardys discussion
4MIRACLE AS AN EVENT WHICH BELIEVERSCONSIDER TO
HAVE RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE (EVEN IF NOT THE WORK
OF GOD)

• Any event could be a disclosure event for a
  believer. This is an anti-realist view. The only
  thing that matters is that the believer sees it
  as significant. No correspondence is necessary
  Moores, God causes what nothing causes. The
  believer says, God or miracle, where
  non-believers would say, baffling. ie. a
  miracle is an event which has no explanation at
  all on this view.

25
Vardys discussion
5A MIRACLE IS AN EVENT CAUSED BY GOD EITHER IN
ACCORDANCE WITH KNOW LAWS OF NATURE OR BROUGHT
ABOUT BY HUMAN BEINGS.

• This is a realist understanding. ie. A miracle
  iff God did it. Claims about violations of laws
  of nature are not provable. They are articles of
  faith. On this definition God acts providentially
  within the structures he has ordained. eg.
  Hollands level crossing example.
• The miracle is in the eye of the beholder but
  unlike the non-realist view, the action of God,
  not merely a belief coherent with the religious
  form of life of the believer.

26
Vardys discussion
6MIRACLES HAPPEN AGAINST THE LAWS OF NATURE AND
ARE BROUGHT ABOUT BY A TIMELESS AND EVERLASTING
GOD

• This rests on Humes definition A
  transgression of a law of nature by a particular
  violation of the Deity, or by the imposition of
  some invisible agent.
• This fits a number of New Testament miracles
  God/Jesus rules over nature.
• Swinburne points out the undesirability of
  allowing clumsy and ad hoc counter-instances to
  natural laws due to this kind of miracle. It
  would upset the whole structure of science.
  

27
Vardys discussion
7 ATTACKS ON THIS DEFINITION 1. HUME

• In the balance for rational human beings is
• a The improbability of
  miracle(s)
• b The evidence that they have occurred.
  

a
b
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.
28
Vardys discussion
8ATTACKS HUME - 2

• Vardy paraphrases Humes 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

29
Vardys discussion
9ATTACKS HUME - 3

• 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.

30
Vardys discussion
10 HUME - 4

• Vardy spells out the meaning of each stage of
  the argument
• Examples of miracles of this kind.
• What it means to say that miracles are not
  rational.
• On witnesses
• The testimony is poor unreliable, untrustworthy,
  unintelligent, uneducated, seeking advantage.
• We are predisposed to love the fantastic.
• Source of miracle stories is generally the
  ignorant barbarious.
• All religions claim miracles to buttress
  contradictory truth claims the stories cancel
  out.

31
Vardys discussion
11 HUME 5 Some critical remarks1
?

• 1. Are laws of nature set in stone as Hume
  seems to suggest? The history of science shows
  that our understanding is always provisional.
  AB 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 (cf. Humes generally anti-inductivist
  stance)

32
Vardys discussion
12 HUME 6 Some critical remarks 2
?

• 2. Humes 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 Humes inherent scepticism, or poverty of
  religious experience, or both, that matter here?
  

33
Vardys discussion
12HUME 7 Some critical remarks 3
?

• 3. Todays reports of miracles are often
  supported by scientific evidence eg. at Lourdes.
  This overcomes many of the Humean difficulties.

34
Vardys discussion
13HUME 8 Some critical remarks 4
?

• 4. Neither Judaism, Christianity or Islam relies
  on miracles as the (only) basis of belief cf.
  Jesus Satans temptations, an evil
  generationseeks a sign (Mt 164) etc.
• If you already believe that God exists, it is
  rational to believe God acts miraculously.
• Believing reports of miracles as a basis for
  belief in any one religion is not enough.
• But remarkable events in themselves do not prove
  that God was the cause. It could be, say,
  psychosomatic AB cf. God-of-the-Gaps thinking

35
Critical lines of
response to Hume (Davis p401)

• 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?

36
A.E.Taylor on Hume
In David Hume and the miraculous, Philosophical
Studies, Macmillan, 1934, A.E.Taylor famously
argues that Humes 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.

37
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

38
Vardys discussion
14 MAURICE WILES

• In his 1986 SCM book of his Bampton Lectures,
  Gods 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!

39
Vardys discussion
15 MAURICE WILES

• 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.

40
Vardys discussion
16 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 Pauls preaching of Christ
  crucified foolishness to the Greeks
  (philosophers, see 1 Corinthinans 1), and
  suggests that God is beyond our apprehension and
  irreducible to human constructs, at least in
  significant measure.

41
Vardys discussion
17 MAURICE WILES useful quotations

• The world as a whole as a single act of God
• There are no good grounds for speaking of
  particular divine actions with respect to
  particular phenomena
• ..it would be strange that no miraculous
  intervention prevented Auschwitz or Hiroshima,
  while the purposes apparently forwarded by some
  of the miracles acclaimed in traditional
  Christian faith seem trivial by comparison.
• Wiles would deny God the freedom to act without
  causal restraint in the world.
• Wiles sees, no reason for the Christian believer
  to affirm any sort of direct divine intervention
  in the natural order and good reasons for not
  doing so.
• An interventionist God for Wiles is, both
  implausible and full of difficulty for a reasoned
  Christian faith.
• Why does God not intervene more often?
  Hebblethwaite

42
So what do you think?

• And of some importance as you approach the
  examination, do you know the material well enough
  to be able to answer any question thrown at you?