- Events done by God which nature could never do.
- Events done by God which nature could do but not in that order.
- Events done by God which nature can do but God does without the use of natural laws.
Although he has these three sections to his thoughts on miracles he wrote a definition which he thinks includes all three of these sections. The definition is as follows:
‘those things . . . . . . . . which are done by divine power apart from the order generally followed in things.’
Here Aquinas is implying that our God is an interventionist God who only acts on certain random occasions and in some ways just a God who watches all human affairs. This goes against the principle of classical theism which states God is an all loving father who is constantly interacting with his creation of the world.
The way in which different philosophers have disagreed on the definition of a miracle shows the problems it has. The problem of the need for a Deity also can cause problems especially in atheists! Although David Hume’s definition of a miracle is most widely used today it is not a set definition agreed on by all philosophers and scholars.
For what reason may an account of a miracle be considered unreliable? (7)
Many accounts of miracles have been documented but whether or not these are reliable, needs to be explored. One of the main reasons many miracles are not to seen to be reliable is that there is not enough evidence mainly in the form of witnesses. As miracles are often claimed to happen to one individual there is more often than not, no one to ‘back them up’ or support their claim.
A main area of doubt in a claim of a miracle is the doubt as to the existence of natural laws. This point is argued by many theists such as Brian Davies who argue that every single event which happens in our world is dependant on God. Brain Davis states:
‘God is present in what is not miraculous as he is in the miraculous’
This is saying that if God is present in all events which happen in our world then it does not make sense to say that his intervention is unusual and use it in the definition of a miracle. Most theists would say that God set natural laws to govern our world in order for us to know and learn the result of our actions and these natural laws govern our world to give us a consistent environment. Even with this view it still makes sense to say there are extraordinary circumstances where God can choose to interrupt the workings of his laws. The problem here of stating how reliable an account of a miracle is, is that it is hard to judge if, and which, natural law has been broken. Some people may argue that a natural law has been broken but some would argue that it was just a coincidence.
The definition of a natural law can cause problems in trying to establish if an event was in fact a miracle due to the fact that our definition of a natural law means that anything can be classed as a miracle! John Hick defines a natural law as:
‘generalisations formulated retrospectively to cover whatever has, in fact, happened’
but following this definition and that of a miracle breaking a natural law, Hick argues ‘We can declare a priori that there are no miracle.’ Due to this definition we should broaden our understanding of the natural law so it would include the idea of a new event. This would mean that there would be no grounds for assuming that this new event broke a natural law due to the fact that the law was based itself on empirical evidence.
Hick’s argument has faults in that everyone now accepts that we need to widen natural laws as new discoveries are made. As proven in the past, what today may seam impossible may in the future be common.
David Hume explains clearly his modern and comprehensive argument about miracles. He explains how he does not think miracles are impossible but he believes it impossible to ever prove that one ever happened. He wrote:
‘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 very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can be possibly imagined.’
Hume’s argument is that the laws of nature have been supported innumerably over a period of hundreds of years. He explains that a claimed miracle would need to outweigh all the evidence that established the natural law in the first place. Here Hume is explaining how it would be easier to say the miracle is false than to prove the evidence in favour of the natural law to be false.
Hume does not end his argument here; he splits it up into four reasons why it is certain that no miracle was ever established. The first of these is that there has never been enough evidence in the form of witnesses to prove a miracle has actually taken place. The second reason he gives supports the first reason and this is that people who have a religious view want to believe a miracle has happened and even if they don’t believe it would promote it to further their religion. Hume’s third reason makes the further claim that:
‘It forms a strong presumption against all supernatural and miraculous relations that they are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous nations’
Hume’s fourth reason is based primarily on the premise that the different religions are mutually exclusive. He states that as a result of this is a miracle occurs in each religion then they cancel each other out.
Richard Swinburne offers an alternative argument against Hume’s assumption that natural laws, as scientific evidence, will always outweigh the evidence in favour of miracles, based upon sheer testimony.
Assuming that we believe that it is possible for a miracle to actually take place, there are four main criticisms as to whether or not a miracle has actually in fact occurred. These are:
- Some miracle accounts can be explained away as coincidences.
- Some miracle accounts appear pointless
- Other miracle accounts should be rejected upon moral grounds
- Yet others are not supported by sufficient evidence.
For these reasons given above some claims of miracles are seen to be unreliable and sometimes not believed. Religious followers are more likely to accept that an event was in fact a miracle that took place rather than an alternative explanation.
In what ways might the occurrence of a miracle support religious beliefs? (6)
Many miracles are often classed as a form of religious experiences and many of these religious experiences can point to a belief in God. Miracles can often confirm an already formed religious belief.
The main points from miracles which support religious beliefs are that it verifies God’s nature as an omnipotent and omnibenevolant being. Also it encourages believer if they are faced with great difficulties, linked with the fact that miracles are God’s response to ‘special pleading’ (Richard Swinburne). The final point here is that miracles breach the epistemic distance between God and man. The final point which supports religious beliefs from miracles are that it shows God’s parental love he has for his creatures and due to the nature of this point it is help strongly by Christians.
Richard Swinburne wrote:
‘If there is a God one might well expect him to make his presence known to man, not merely through the overall pattern of the universe in which he placed them, but by dealing more intimately and personally with them.’
Many people state that it is often agued that people with an understanding in miracles are inclined to believe in miracles. Sceptics of this view suggest that their faith should not need miracles to confirm it and there faith should be authenticated. Sceptics also argue that miracles of open to different interpretations and due to this cannot prove the existence of God and also those we may have serious doubts about the reliability of the testimony.
On the whole the occurrence of miracles does support a religious belief as they are seen to reinforce the basic ideas about God and the faith. Miricles are seen as an active and important part of the Christian faith and if a person is unsure of their belief in God, experiencing a miracle, or witnessing one would be likely to confirm their belief.
