Our knowledge of miracles leads us to the conclusion that God exists. Discuss this point of view.
'Our knowledge of miracles leads us to the conclusion that God exists.' Discuss this point of view.
A miracle may be defined in different ways, presenting the first problem in establishing their occurrence.
A miracle is a concept which, in everyday usage, might mean little more than an unexpected yet welcome event. However, in religious terminology it is usually considered to describe something of much greater significance. And yet, even here, opinion varies on what may or may not be legitimately classed as a miracle.
St Thomas Aquinas identified three definitions of a miracle. The first includes all those events in which something is done by God that nature could never do (the resurrection of Jesus Christ, for example, would fit into this category). The second describes events in which God does something that can occur in nature, but not in that order. The third relates to events in which God does what usually occurs in nature, but without the operation of nature. Another biblical example of this third definition might be a man recovering from polio in a minute. It is certainly not impossible to recover from polio, but to do so in one minute would be, according to Aquinas, 'miraculous'.
There is another understanding of what constitutes a miracle. RF Holland proposed that 'A coincidence can be taken religiously as a sign and called a miracle.' Moses is said to have parted the Red Sea. It has since been discovered that such a thing could indeed happen naturally in a certain place at a certain time, but it would be an extremely rare occurrence. However, for this to occur coincidentally at the precise moment when Moses required it so would, under Holland's explanation, be a miracle.
David Hume rejects this particular definition of a miracle, stating that 'Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happens in the common course of nature.' His own definition is: 'A transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity or by the interposition of some invisible agent.' This is generally accepted now as the classic definition: an occurrence that is contrary to the known laws of nature that also bears some religious significance. It is sometimes referred to as the 'violation' concept.
Some theists do not accept this definition because they will not accept the existence of natural laws. Brian Davies is one upholder of the idea that God is present in every action and sustains the world moment by moment. He believes that every moment is therefore miraculous. However most theists agree that God created natural laws so that the world could sustain itself. This way people could accurately predict the consequences of their actions.
A number of philosophers have put forward arguments denying the possibility of miracles occurring. John Hick argues that 'We can declare a priori that there are no miracles.' He came to this conclusion after considering that natural laws are only formed retrospectively following events that have happened. Events witnessed that were previously thought impossible cannot break the natural law, since the law itself is based on empirical evidence. Such an event should, in fact, render the law in need of adjustment. However, although Hick's comment is technically correct, it really only questions the accuracy of the definition of ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
A number of philosophers have put forward arguments denying the possibility of miracles occurring. John Hick argues that 'We can declare a priori that there are no miracles.' He came to this conclusion after considering that natural laws are only formed retrospectively following events that have happened. Events witnessed that were previously thought impossible cannot break the natural law, since the law itself is based on empirical evidence. Such an event should, in fact, render the law in need of adjustment. However, although Hick's comment is technically correct, it really only questions the accuracy of the definition of a miracle in relation to natural laws. It doesn't deny the possibility of such events actually occurring. Hick admits that there are 'unusual and striking events evoking and mediating a vivid awareness of God.'
David Hume denies the possibility of miracles taking place, arguing that the chance of a miracle occurring is so unlikely; and the evidence against such a thing so great, that any other explanation within the laws of nature is more probable. If you were to proportion belief (i.e. the occurrence of a miracle) to the evidence (the laws of nature and the whole of past human experience), it would be overwhelmingly more probable that the miracle did not, in fact, take place, unless the testimony to its occurrence was absolutely incontestable. Hume goes on to give four reasons why this has never been the case, and therefore why no miracle was ever established.
The first three reasons criticise the poor testimony to miracles.
i. There has never been any miracle witnessed by 'a sufficient number of men' to make belief in its occurrence rational. Furthermore, Hume believes that for any number of men to be considered reliable, they would have to be educated and intelligent, of good reputation and 'undoubted integrity', and have a reputation to lose and nothing at all to gain. And there would have to be a lot of them.
ii. Religious people may claim to have witnessed a miracle, knowing it to be false, in order to promote a cause, such as their own beliefs. Others may be genuinely mistaken because it is human nature to be amazed by the supernatural and the fantastic, and they may suspend their reason in a state of wonder and disbelief.
iii. Stories of miracles come from, in Hume's own words, 'ignorant and barbarous places and nations', and therefore they cannot be particularly trustworthy.
Hume concludes that, having weighed the evidence on both sides, it is more sensible to reject reports of miracles than it is to believe them. His fourth point argues as follows:
iv. All religions claim miracles to support the traditions of their own faiths. Assuming mutual exclusivity - as Hume wrote, 'In matters of religion, whatever is different is contrary' - the differing miracle accounts only serve to undermine each other, cancelling each other out and providing a 'complete triumph for the sceptic.'
Hume's argument has a number of worthy points, but many of his claims are quite severely flawed.
The first argument that there is a greater probability that a given miracle didn't happen than that miracle did happen is formed upon somewhat bizarre reasoning. The whole concept of a miracle relies on its being improbable; impossible even. Its occurrence should neither undermine our understanding of natural laws, nor force us to revise them.
Richard Swinburne argued that scientific evidence would always outweigh the probability of a miracle, because a miracle is by definition contrary to scientific laws. Instead, he identified three types of historical evidence that can be used to support miracles:
Our apparent memories
2 The testimony of others
3 The physical traces left by the events in question
He emphasised the fact that our understanding of natural laws is founded on these types of evidence. Therefore, if evidence of this nature is not sufficient to establish a miracle, it cannot be sufficient to establish the certainty of a natural law.
Hume's four additional arguments against miracles are also difficult to accept. He never explained what number of witnesses to a miracle he might consider sufficient. His claim that miracle testimonies come from 'ignorant and barbarous' nations is ineffective, because almost every nation in the world has provided such accounts. His final point assumes that each miracle testimony was intended to be used as proof of the truth of the particular religion it supported, and the fact that they are so widespread among the various religions undermines each of the faiths. This view is simply inaccurate; different religions are not mutually exclusive.
At the time Hume was writing, Newton's understanding of natural laws being fixed was accepted as being a certainty. However, the present day understanding of chaos theory tells us that at the fundamental particle level the movement of particles is random and, therefore, exceptions to the 'natural laws' are actually possible.
Another problem with the time of Hume's writing is that miracle stories would always have been of a word-of-mouth nature. More recently, occurrences of miracles have been supported by scientific evidence. At Lourdes, a site where thousands of healing miracles are claimed to have been performed, there have been at least sixty-eight carefully attested by an independent, unbiased team of doctors who fit exactly Hume's criteria for credible witnesses: they have reputations at stake and the evidence they provide is incontrovertible.
Hume's argument seeks to discredit the previous testimonies of miracles. However, nothing in his argument proves that miracles are impossible, that they cannot occur, and he does not consider what one should think or believe if one experiences a miracle oneself. Taking this into account, Hume's line of reasoning is very limited.
Assuming that, as it cannot be proved that miracles cannot occur, it has been established that it may be possible that they can occur, they question now must be: Do miracles occur? There are a number of arguments that have been put forward in an attempt to prove that they do not.
i. RF Holland believed that coincidence could, in certain circumstances, be taken to be of a religious nature, and to be miraculous. However, it has been argued that there is no way to prove irrefutably that the occurrence really wasn't a coincidence or series of coincidences, if the event was within the laws of nature.
ii. A miracle should by definition have some religious significance or purpose, otherwise it is pointless. Many reported miracles may break natural laws but appear meaningless, and it is then difficult to class them as 'miracles'.
iii. If it is possible that miracles can happen, then it follows that it is possible that they do happen. However, in almost every case the miracle account is not supported by sufficient evidence, so it is impossible to prove that a miracle has occurred.
iv. The most successful criticism of the occurrence of miracles must be that they are incompatible with the justice and love of God.
Maurice Wiles proposed in God's Action in the World that 'the primary usage for the idea of divine action should be in relation to the world as a whole than to particular occurrences within it'. He speaks of 'the world as a whole as a single act of God', and claims that God never intervenes in the world by individual acts.
Wiles' argument relates to the debate about evil and suffering in the world. Why should a just and omnibenevolent God intervene at Lourdes to cure an old man from terminal cancer, and not have some miraculous intervention prevent the atrocities of the Holocaust, or the millions dying of disease and famine? Wiles claims that the idea of an interventionist God is 'both implausible and full of difficulty for a reasoned Christian faith.' It is a debased idea of God, and effectively a God who is not worthy of worship.
In Keith Ward's book Divine Action he gives the explanation that God acts so infrequently in the world so as not to disrupt the whole order of creation. God's purpose in performing miracles is, according to Ward, not to reduce the suffering of humanity but to build faith.
If, then, a miracle were to occur, what should be made of it? Is the conclusion that God exists a logical and justifiable one? This rather depends upon the prior beliefs of the individual. One who witnesses a miracle and already believes in a loving God could reasonably and easily attribute the miracle to God. The miracle would be an act that would reaffirm their faith. However, if the same miracle were to be witnessed by an atheist, the miracle alone would probably not be sufficient to suddenly generate a belief in God.
It must be concluded that the occurrence of a miracle can really do little more than strengthen the previous beliefs of one who already believes in God.