Hillsdale Free Will Baptist College
Miracles
PHIL 5013
Philosophy of Religion
Instructor: Stephen M. Ashby, Ph.D.
Kendall Ross
June/July 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Miracles 3
Introduction 3
Miracles Defined 3
Thomas Aquinas 4
The Resurrection of Jesus 5
Conclusion 6
Hillsdale Free Will Baptist College
PHIL 5013 - Philosophy of Religion
Miracles
Introduction
Many religiously minded people would testify to a belief in miracles and would probably claim that they have either witnessed a miracle in their own life or in another's. They may also claim that such events are evidence for the existence of God. For example, many Christians would claim that the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus validated his claim to be the only way to God. Others, however, may want to challenge the notion of miracles. These people may want to challenge the supportive "evidence" or the validity of the "miraculous events." Others may state that the "miracle" can be explained scientifically, while others may dismiss the possibility of a miracle every occurring. Regardless, this concept of God linking with the world is an intriguing subject.
Miracles Defined
While the term miracle is used in a wide variety of occurrences, the term is most frequently defined in a strictly religious sense. For most individuals, a miracle is an unusual event that is the result of some sort of divine activity. David Hume offers this definition..."A miracle may be accurately defined as a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent."1
This begs the question, "What is a 'law of nature'?" Michael Peterson et al define Natural Laws as "...statements that describe what will (or probably will) happen or not happen under specifiable conditions."2 Thus, they describe the natural tendencies or dispositions of things in the world to act or react in certain ways. Many theists, however, do not believe that the term miracle should be limited to those events for which no plausible natural explanation is available. R. F. Holland relates a story of a child "caught" on a railway crossing with a train coming - when, just ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
This begs the question, "What is a 'law of nature'?" Michael Peterson et al define Natural Laws as "...statements that describe what will (or probably will) happen or not happen under specifiable conditions."2 Thus, they describe the natural tendencies or dispositions of things in the world to act or react in certain ways. Many theists, however, do not believe that the term miracle should be limited to those events for which no plausible natural explanation is available. R. F. Holland relates a story of a child "caught" on a railway crossing with a train coming - when, just around the corner the conductor faints and the train comes to rest only a few feet from the child.3 While this can be explained naturally, many theists would argue that this was a direct act of God. Theists expand the definition to cover any event in relation to which God has directly manipulated the natural order.
Thomas Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas defines a miracle as, "Those things... which are done by Divine power apart from the order generally followed in things". Thus, like Hume, Aquinas distinguishes between 'natural' and 'supernatural' activities. However, he also describes miracles as "...when God does what is usually done by the working of nature, but without the operation of the principles of nature."4 By doing this he allows for the possibility of miracles to be events that occur within the 'system' of 'natural activity'. For example, someone being cured by God of a fever has witnessed a miracle yet without any 'natural laws' being broken. Rather than the person being cured of his fever naturally, he is cured by God.
The Resurrection of Jesus
No purported miracle has received more attention than the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Peterson5 et al cite that almost all biblical scholars agree on very specific issues regarding the resurrection...
) Jesus of Nazareth lived, was crucified and buried
2) His disciples claimed soon after his death that his tomb was empty
3) Some claimed to have met, encountered and interacted with a live Jesus
4) These experiences caused his disciples to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead
5) This was a key belief within early Christianity.
6) The biblical record clearly claims that Jesus died, was buried and then rose from the dead.
7) There exists no good reason to believe that the disciples were lying since their lives were so radically changed by this belief that they were willing to die rather than renounce their faith.
The best explanation of the facts, according to many scholars, is that Jesus literally resurrected from the dead. However, many argue that the evidence is far from compelling. The essence of the critique is as follows...
) Considerable debate surrounds the question of whether either the disciples or the very early church actually believed that Jesus had risen from the dead and appeared to many.
2) There is little independent, objective evidence for the gospel accounts of the resurrection
3) Just because the disciples believed Jesus to have risen from the dead, this in no sense increases the probability that the resurrection actually occurred.
4) Even if the Jewish authorities were aware of the resurrection claims and could not produce the body, this does not increase the probability that the resurrection took place.
5) The burden of proof lies clearly with those who believe Jesus to have risen from the dead.
Conclusion
Most philosophers agree that serious discussion of the appropriate relationship between evidence and worldviews is essential with respect to a purported miracle. All involved in the debate of miracles - specifically the resurrection of Christ - agree that it raises important questions about the assessment of historical data. What evidence is relevant? How "strong" should the evidence be? Who makes the determinations?
Other questions arise in regards to miracles. Why would a God who can unilaterally intervene not do so more frequently "in order to prevent particularly horrendous evils?"6 Or, why is it that God intervenes (seemingly) in one case but not in another? How does God choose to heal one child of AIDS but another dies? Theists answer this question from several perspectives. Perhaps God's perspective of the situation is different in that what we see as analogous, God does not. It may also be argued that although situations may be analogous, God is under no obligation to act in ways we think are appropriate. God simply does what he wants for reasons beyond our understanding. Those questions, accordingly, may continue to be debated for ages.
1 David Hume, Enquiries Concerning the Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals, 2d ed. L.A Selby-Bigge, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.
2 Michael Peterson et al., Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, 1998.
3 R. F. Holland, "The Miraculous," American Philosophical Quarterly 2, 1965:43.
4 Stephen Davis, "Is It Possible to Know that Jesus Was Raised from the Dead?" Faith and Philosophy 1, no. 2, April 1984.
5 Michael Peterson et al., Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, 1998.
6 David Griffin, "Values, Evil and Liberation Theology," Process Philosophy and Social Thought, Ed. John B. Cobb and W. Widick Schroeder, Chicago: Center for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1981.
??
??
??
??
4
2
