From The Student Room

TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > A Level Religious Studies Revision Notes > Miracles

---

Miracles - REVISION

Contents 1 What constitutes a miracle? 2 Supporters of Miracles 2.1 Aquinas 2.2 C. S. Lewis 2.3 Swinburne 2.4 Science 3 Alternative Definition of Miracles 3.1 R. F. Holland 3.2 Tillich 3.3 Wiles 4 Philosophers who are more critical of miracles 4.1 John Macquarie 4.2 Hume 4.2.1 Critque of Hume 4.3 Bultmann 5 Religion and miracles 6 Essay 7 Test Sheet 8 Comments

What constitutes a miracle?

According to Hume a miracle is: “A transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the deity or by the interposition of some invisible agent”

Definitions of miracles are often very broad and leave them particularly wide to interpretation. We may say that it is a miracle that someone has recovered from a cold, but that is only the believer’s interpretation and cannot be verified as miraculous. It simply reflects the way that the believer looks at the world, and that he or she sees a religious significance in the event even if another may see it as a co-incidence. For example – 6-year-old Teesside girl fell 150ft off of the edge of a cliff in North Yorkshire and only received minor injuries, was this a miracle?

Supporters of Miracles

Aquinas

• His definition of miracles is as ‘those things done by divine power apart from the order usually followed in things’. This view suggests that God can do what he wants with his creation.
• Has identified 3 types of miracle:
  1. An event done by God which nature could not do – could be said to be the most traditional approach. They are acts that contradict our regular experience. Aquinas uses the example of the reversal of the course of the sun.
  2. An event done by God which nature could do, but not in this order such as recovering from paralysis or a terminal illness. Its possible for these things to happen but it is not usually expected, and so could be attributed to the direct intervention of God.
  3. An event done which nature could do but without using the principles or forces of nature. For example, recovering from a cold more quickly than usual perhaps because someone prayed for this, and then it might be called a miraculous intervention of God.
• This allowed for a range of possible events, which we could call miracles.
• This also did not limit a miracle to a violation of a natural law and so is therefore, primarily identified by Gods intervention.
• A miracle is an act of God, which is beneficial to the recipient, which may break a natural law but does not necessarily have to.

C. S. Lewis

Miracles are a type of revelation.

Swinburne

“If he (God) has reason to interact with us , he has reason very occasionally to intervene and suspend those natural laws by which our life is controlled”

Swinburne acknowledges that it is difficult to outweigh the scientific evidence, but that we do have enough historical evidence to suggest that there is a God and that God can violate the laws of nature.

It is perfectly probable that there could be one off exceptional and unrepeatable occurrences. The laws of nature do not have to be rewritten. If God is omnipotent, then he quite clearly could suspend the laws of nature although not too often as this will interfere with scientific progress and free will.

He argues from first principles and argues that future predictions could always nullify a law. When an event violates the Law of nature, the appearance may simply be that no one has thought of the Law that could explain the event

We rely on the evidence of senses and perception to give us information about the world, why do we not rely on the evidence and the testimony of those claiming miracle. Swinburne also recognises the problem that God’s intervention would have on human freedom which is why he argues that God doesn’t intervene too often

• The Principle of Credulity: If it seems that X is present, then probably x is present. In short what one seems to perceive is probably the case (It is a principle of rationality). He puts the onus on the sceptic to disprove religious experience otherwise it should be taken at face value.
• The Principle of Testimony: In the absent of special consideration it is reasonable to believe that the experiences of others are probably as they report them. In other words you should believe other people as well.

Science

Quantum Physics - no longer is the Universe seen to be governed by a set of constantly applied rules, as in the Newtonian system. The Laws of nature are seen as being more fluid. Miraculous events are therefore more easily acceptable, but still not necessarily divine.

There is also the issue of whether the Laws of nature are determined or statistical. If they are statistical, then by definition, one would expect to see them break the rules on rare occasions.

Alternative Definition of Miracles

R. F. Holland

Holland argues that miracles are: “a remarkable and beneficial coincidence that is interpreted in a religious fashion.”

Holland sees miracles not as violations of Laws of nature, but rather as coincidences. He takes on board a lot of what Hume argues and agrees that if there were several reasonable witnesses then the Law of nature would have to be revised or falsified as non-existent. However he agrees that this would not be a simple thing to do so it is better to see miracles as coincidences.

He quotes a famous example where a child is stuck on a railway line in a pedal car. A train is coming, but the driver fails to see the child. However just in the nick of time the driver faints, his hand is taken off the lever and the brake is automatically activated. The train then stops in front of the child. There is no violation of nature, however for a religious person this may have religious significance and be thought of as a miracle.

This is more a case of seeing an event as a miracle. There is no hand of God; rather the onus is clearly on the interpretation of person.

Tillich

This is an interesting concept of miracle as it has little to do with violations of laws of nature, but more to do with the impression it makes on the person, whether it leads them to change the direction of their life and whether it has any religious significance. So it focuses more on the consequences and effects it has on the person.

What this means is that natural events may be perceived as a miracle and have religious significance for the person witnessing the events.

For example, a person has been brought back to life that has been dead for three days. Even if it could be proved that the person had only been comatose, this might still be seen as a miracle by the observer owing to the impression it makes on him or her.

He argues that a miracle is an event that does not contradict the rational structure of reality

Wiles

If God intervenes in the universe then this would make God arbitrary. Wiles doesn’t deny miracle as such, but his conception of miracle is more of the general kind. In other words the miracle is the act of creation (alongside sustaining and preserving the universe) and no other.

By definition, a miracle is a very unlikely event – if it wasn’t then there would be no rules to nature. This leaves us with the view that God is disinterested and only intervenes in the world occasionally . Wiles claims that miracles present an obstacle to religious faith: people are being asked to believe in an omni benevolent and omnipotent God who fed 5000 people but does nothing about world starvation today. This degrades the classical image of an all powerful and all loving God. A God who intervenes selectively would not be worthy of worship because of his failure to act on a wider scale.

Wiles’ restriction on God also applies to his action in Christ – it would be wrong to say that miracles cannot happen and then allow the incarnation and resurrection

Wiles claims that there must be a way to explain the doctrine of the incarnation and resurrection which does not involve a breach of nature. So, Incarnation is not the act of God:

1. It is “the perfection of human response to God” 2. The full humanity of Jesus is central 3. Jesus freely and fully responded totally to God’s grace and in doing so, incarnated God in the world

Philosophers who are more critical of miracles

John Macquarie

Why is it that one person interprets an event as an act of God and another does not?

Hume

• Created a case against miracles saying not that they do not happen, but that it would be impossible to prove them – he is an empiricist (bases knowledge on experience).
• A miracle is ‘A transgression of a law of nature brought about by a particular violation of a Deity’.
• Nothing that can happen in nature should be called a miracle.
• Had 5 arguments against believing in miracles; one philosophical and four psychological.
  1. Not enough evidence of miracles to outweigh our general experience. Rationality requires that belief is proportionate to evidence. ‘A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence’.
  2. Insufficient witnesses – must be witnessed by a highly credible, good sense, well-educated person. How much education is ‘enough’?
  3. The testimonies usually came from ignorant and barbarous nations.
  4. People tend to exaggerate and are drawn towards the sensational and drama. The often have a desire to believe.
  5. There are conflicting claims that cancel each other out. Hick’s response would be that all religions lead to one God though.
• Hume will never be fully able to fully prove to believers that miracles do not occur, as the definition of a miracle implies divine activity and this is ultimately beyond our earthly considerations. But sceptics and believers can be said to both agree that the occurrence of miracles must be a very rare event.

Critque of Hume

Hick would say that we do not know the laws of nature, and that they appear to have been broken before. Believed that when new things are observed our understanding of the natural law should simply be widened.

C.D. Broad – Similar response to Hick. Rejects Hume’s assumption that there are known fixed laws of nature, what if the laws of nature as we know them are wrong? The laws may need to be revised.

Clack and Clack argues that Hume has not provided a satisfactory solution to the problem of miracles for he has confused improbability with impossibility.

Miracles are unusual events but this does not mean that they have not occurred. Sure maybe many reports can be put down to drunkenness. However Clack continues to argue that Hume never touches on the point of what he would do if he was faced with a miracle. Would he be a knave, or would he claim that his senses had deceived him?

Vardy-

• Hume talks of laws of nature as though they were set in tablets of stone, however as science advances it is showing that some of our understanding of natural laws has been incorrect.
• Indeed how could science advance if it did not base its predictions on new experience? Hume seems to argue that only standard experiences should be acceptable, but if this was only the case, how could science progress?
• Hume only deals with reports of miracles, what would he have done if he had experienced one himself, would he apply the same rationale?
• Miracles today have often been backed up by science. Over 70 miracles at Lourdes have been verified by science.
• Neither Christianity, Judaism, nor Islam have ever claimed that you should believe the religion on account of the miracle. Jesus always insisted that it was Faith that came first. So miracle and miracle stories should not be an obstacle to Faith.
• Vardy writes that what is not rational is to believe in religion on the basis of miracle.

Bultmann

Bultmann was the theologian who tackled the problem of how to make the New Testament relevant in the 20th century.

Bultmann, in Demythologising the NT, argued for interpreting the NT in existentialist terms. He held that people today found it difficult to believe the stories of the NT. For this reason the Resurrection is to be regarded as a mythical event. The resurrection is something that happened in the subjective experience of the disciples, not something that took place in history.

Influenced by Heidegger, he went on to include the resurrection and the miraculous stories in his classification of stories that need to be demythologized because miracles get in the way of faith. Modern science has explained many things today that would have seemed like miracles in the past.

Religion and miracles

The Bible itself is believed to be inspired by God, through human scribes. As such, it is held, by Christians, to be the Word of God. This obviously includes the miracle stories contained within it, which are part of God’s message. There are many miracles stories to be found in the Bible e.g. parting of the red sea, The Bible is clear that miracles happen. So, to doubt in miracles is to doubt that the Bible is divinely inspired.

Miracles are a basic part of the Christian faith. St. John writes: And the Word was made flesh. God became man; this is known as the Incarnation. If Jesus was God Incarnate (God in human flesh), it is logical to suppose that he was capable of performing miracles. The best known miracle of Christianity is the Resurrection, on which the Christian faith stands or falls. If Jesus was dead, this would have been an act of God, so through the resurrection:

• God demonstrates supreme power over death and evil
• God confirms all that Jesus taught said and did in God’s name
• God demonstrates that Jesus is alive today, working through his people

The Jewish Talmud describes Jesus as a magician who was hung on the Day of Passover. In Luke 11:14-22, Jesus is accused of performing miracles under the power of Beelzebul, the prince of devils. Why would the Jews who did not believe he was the son of God say he performed miracles if he didn’t?

Essay

‘Stories about miracles are an obstacle to faith for modern people.’ Discuss.

• Look at the criticisms of Hume and Wiles and whether the concept of miracle is valid for modern people.
• Consider the argument that miracle stories support faith by demonstrating the nature and power of God (like in Bruce Almighty), (use Biblical examples).
• Consider the argument that miracle stories should be ‘demythologized’ to enable modern people to have faith without attempting to suspend their rational disbelief (i.e. Bultmann).

‘By definition miracles do not occur’. Discuss.

‘A miracle is commonly defined as an event that transgresses the laws of nature’. Discuss.

Asses Hume’s reasons for rejecting miracles.

Discuss the view that the concept of miracle is inconsistent with the belief in a benevolent God.

Test Sheet

Down load a test paper for this topic. Right click and save the file. Then print it out and fill in. Alternatively type your answers in the document. The paper asks various questions about your knowledge and understanding of the topic of miracles.

Comments

These notes are aimed at people studying Miracles in A Level Philosophy, but will be suitable for other people too such as those who are studying Religious Studies

Originally written by Helena224 and was edited by Chrisateen