MIRACLES

1
MIRACLES
1d Miracles
2
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.

3
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

4
HUMES 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.
  

5
HUMES APPROACH - 2

• 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.

6
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.

7
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)

8
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.

9
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.

10
BIBLICAL MIRACLES 3

• One typical 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

11
BIBLICAL MIRACLES 4
Amazing events attributed to God
Violations of laws of nature
Vng Violations - not due to God
Vg Violations - due to God
NVg Not Violations - due to God
12
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 Humes 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 1313f) and the False Prophet (Rev
1920). Jesus himself speaks of evildoers who
will do mighty works (Matt 722).
13
BIBLICAL MIRACLES 6
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
Vg
NVg
14
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
Rationalists
Empiricists
15
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.
  

16
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

17
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.

18
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.

19
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.

20
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.

21
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).

22
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?

23
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

24
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 suspension 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?

25
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.

26
A CLOSER LOOK AT HUME

Recall Humes 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.
27
A CLOSER LOOK AT HUME - 2

• In the balance for rational human beings
  according to Hume 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
A CLOSER LOOK AT HUME - 3

• 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
• (The Puzzle of
  God, Fount, 1990, 184)

29
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.

30
A CLOSER LOOK AT HUME - 5Some 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. Humes
  generally anti-inductivist stance could allow for
  exceptions, if God did in fact act against
  normal laws.

31
A CLOSER LOOK AT HUME - 6 Some critical remarks
?

• 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?
  

32
A CLOSER LOOK AT HUME - 7 Some critical remarks
?

• 3. Todays 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 God-of-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.

33
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 Satans
  temptations (Mt chapter 4) an evil
  generationseeks a sign (Mt 164). 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. Humes claim that
  miracles in different religions cancel each other
  out is contentious and certainly doesnt allow
  for the complete triumph of the sceptic as he
  claims.

34
Other critical lines
of response to Hume (Davies Philosophy of
Religion a guide and anthology, Oxford, 2000,
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?

35
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.

36
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

37
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. Humes 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.

38
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.

39
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?

40
MAURICE WILES a moral objection to miracles

• 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!

41
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.

42
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 Corinthians chapter 1), and
  suggests that God is beyond our apprehension and
  is irreducible to human constructs, at least in
  significant measure.

43
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 Wiless objection to miracles
  similar to that of Hume and in what ways is it
  different?