Although Aquinas’s principles are of high esteem, there are several criticisms of his argument, which weaken the validity of his points. Despite the fact that Aquinas proposed an adaptable definition that is appropriate in our lives today and somewhat explained the position of God as an interventionist, there are still notable faults in his argument which undermine not only the existence of miracles, but how to define them. Due to the long-running debate between philosophers and theologians alike, many insights and different perspectives on the subject of miracles have been proposed over the years. However, nearly every argument has a restriction that is exploited by another statement, and so the debate continues.
Aquinas’s main principle of God acting as an interventionist, if true, it would appear as though God had intervened in random and haphazard ways, such as in answering specific prayers and not others. This definition of God’s role shows him as a being that will only intervene if necessary to in grave circumstances, however, he did not intervene to prevent either of the World Wars or the Holocaust and today still, millions of people are dying of starvation and disease. Surely an interventionist God would have interceded to alleviate these situations? This could lead to the belief that God is merely a spectator of human affairs who intervenes in trivial matters at random. Countless people have claimed to be witness to one of God’s many miracles when faced with critical situations, however, this would lead to the conclusion that God values some higher than others to intervene to save one persons life and not another. This overrides the worldly recognised definitions of God as all loving and equitable. Nonetheless, a Christian response to this problem, in justification of the ideas proposed by Aquinas, would be that if God were to intervene constantly, he may intervene too much and therefore, there is the possibility of him over-riding free will and causing natural laws to be altered.
The problem that faces us when trying to determine God as an interventionist are not simply the circumstances in which he appears to have stepped in, but the characteristics of God as a being. He is widely recognised to possess the qualities of omnipotence, omnipresence and benevolence yet from the examples of where God has not intervened to save those in grave danger would suggest otherwise. If God were to be omnipotent, omnipresent as well as benevolent, why does God allow his people to endure things such as war, famine and disease occur? Surely these are not the actions of a just and loving God.
There are several counter-arguments to the ideas proposed by Aquinas in terms of natural laws. The fact that Aquinas based his argument largely upon the existence of natural laws and them being broken by God cause us, as humans, to question our understanding of natural laws and that we may not be aware of them being broken at all. A suggestion by John Hick implies that if a natural law were to be broken, that this occurrence may be nothing more than something out of the ordinary occurring or perhaps something unexplainable. Therefore, he says, these events which may have occurred due to the breach of a natural law, do not earn the right to be called miracles. Additionally, with the progression of science, our understanding of nature and the world around us increases daily, so what may have been considered a miracle a hundred or a thousand years ago, may be simply explained in scientific terms today.
Furthermore, the philosopher Thompson has insinuated that we can expect and allow random acts to take place within nature, but that we don’t need to complicate them further by considering them miracles. Swinburne proposes that because the laws of nature can be foreseen and things are normally what they seem to be, if an apparently infeasible and perhaps “impossible” event happens, then we have rights to class it as a miracle. His argument links to the principle of Ockham’s Razor, which suggests that the most simplistic argument is the most philosophically legitimate.
It is commonly though that there is no scientific proof to verify the existence and occurrence of miracles in the world today, however, this is widely recognised as debatable. Evidence of miracles has most notably been in the form of eyewitness accounts that are normally dismissed due to the limitations of the memory and accuracy in their representation of what happened. To counter this criticism, Richard Swinburne developed the Principle of Credulity, which claimed that people generally tell the truth, that things are generally what they appear to be. Therefore, if someone claims to have witnessed something out of the ordinary, worthy of being called a miracle, then it’s likely they have. He maintained that it is unfair to judge all eyewitnesses accounts as inaccurate, as just because some were people got it wrong on a couple of occasions should not discredit others who might be telling the truth on the principle that all eyewitnesses are unreliable. He was therefore able to deduce that there are three circumstances where eyewitnesses would not be telling the truth. They were if that person was not in the place that they claimed to have been, if they were on drugs at the time of the so-called miracle’s occurrence or if there is significant evidence to prove that God was not responsible for the event. He furtherly claimed that the majority of statements from eyewitness accounts do not take place in these circumstances and therefore the likelihood of miracles taking place in the world today is improved.
A strong criticism of the occurrence of miracles is that what was termed a miracle in the past, has been discovered to be something less worthy with the help of scientific developments. An example of are the accounts of Jesus allowing the blind to see again in the Bible, yet the growth of science in recent years has suggested an argument that Jesus was simply moving the cataracts of the blind, to the corners of the eyes with his thumbs. Therefore, critics have claimed that what some define as miracles, will be discovered to be scientifically justifiable in the future.
Hume, is one of the most recognised scholars who have questioned the occurrence of miracles. As an atheist, Hume was extremely sceptical of miracles. In his most appreciated work, ‘An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding’, Hume disputed that it would always be impossible to tell if a miracle has taken place and that they are the most least likely of things to occur. He defined a miracle as “a transgression of a law of nature by a particular violation of Deity, or by the intervention of some invisible agent”, which exposed his belief that miracles transgress the laws of nature.
Hume claimed that “Nothing is esteemed a miracle if it ever happens in the common course of nature” and in Hume’s opinion, the highest court of appeal was probability and he believed that all knowledge of a matter of fact is based on past experiences and customs. Therefore, he had cause to believe that if something defies the laws of nature, meaning that it goes against past experience, then it is improbable. When considering the validity of an eyewitness testimony, Hume argued that it was more probable that the person was lying than that an actual miracle had taken place.
Hume vehemently denied the existence of miracles systematically through different arguments, specifically four points that outlined why one should not believe the present evidence for the existence of miracles. He claimed that no miracle was "attested by a sufficient number of men" and that those who did claim to have seen miracles originated from "ignorant and barbaric nations". Hume claimed that only the testimony of an abundant number of people who were well educated and reputation, who had nothing to gain from claiming they had witnessed a miracle. It has been pointed out that there are several miracles that have taken place where there has been a significant number of witnesses, such as the feeding of the five thousand in the Bible, however Hume abstains from commenting on the necessary education in order to make a miracle seem believable. He also went on to say that human nature “loves the fantastic”, claiming that humans subconsciously seek out miracles and that they are keen to accept an unusual event as a miracle, even when there is a rational reason for the occurrence. Hume’s most meaningful statement was all religious reports of miracles contradict one another, so therefore they cancel each other out. Although he points out a clear fault, he just assumes that because all religions are contradictory, they are all in error and therefore completely wrong. A possible solution to this statement could be that one out of the six main religions of the world is right and the rest are simply mistaken or a religious pluralist would state that all religions are legitimate, but that they have interpreted the miracles in different ways.
Although his original beliefs are fairly reasonable, the four points that he drew up were criticised for being overall, too general. Hume’s claim that miracles were simply "religious propaganda" and were simply developed to "over throw every other system" is extremely narrow-minded and intolerant of others, as miracles have been proven to fortify a person’s faith and subsist as more of an affinity to those who believe, as opposed to propaganda. The main criticism of Hume’s beliefs is that as our understanding of science changes daily, something that occurred over a hundred years ago that was recognised as a miracle may not be conceived as one, in today’s world.
In conclusion, it can be noted that there are many criticisms of the existence of miracle in the world today, however, there are just as many responses to these criticisms, proving miracles to have some credibility. All that can be said is that there is no definite resolution as to whether miracles occur or not, as when bringing their existence into question, the concept, purpose and interpretation of miracles is almost always unclear. Despite the criticisms made by various philosophers outlined in this essay, I still think that there are still inexplicable events, which can only be put down being a miracle. In spite of the many number of criticisms, I personally believe that miracles still have some credibility and are largely dependent upon those who are willing to keep their faith, despite the cynicism’s. Due to the fact that miracles mean different things to different people, there are many things that can define a miracle. For some people, the birth of a child would be a miracle, whereas others may need a religious significance to determine a specific event a miracle. Therefore, the most that can be said about a miracle is that it’s an event which can be interpreted to have some significance, religious or not, that in some way can be the result of God’s intervention in the world or in the lives of those who have faith.
Overall, I believe there to be considerable strength in the belief in miracles in spite of the criticisms. This is due to the fact that people are more likely going to want to believe that there is a God that is capable of showing his power every now and then in the form of miracles, than those who simply don’t believe in God. Nowhere is the strength in the belief in miracles more apparent than in those who have faith. Therefore, even though philosophers can argue over what the universal definition of miracles should be and undermine the effectiveness of the events deemed miraculous, I believe that miracles still take place in the world today in the smallest of ways, some of which we are not even aware.