WHAT IS A MIRACLE? 1 - Intro This module is all to do with concepts, interpretations and definitions. The word ‘miracle is used in many ways nowadays to denote some unexpected or surprising event Religiously a miracle is the work of God The most common understanding of a miracle is that it somehow breaks, changes or uses the Laws of Nature.

WHAT IS A MIRACLE? 2 - Aqui Religiously, a miracle must also bear some deeper positive significance that points beyond the miracle itself. “What is a miracle?” is the most important question and we must start with Thomas Aquinas again. (ALWAYS START WITH THE ‘A’) Aquinas had three definitions of a miracle 1/ Events in which something is done by God which nature could never do (such as the sun going back on its course. (Joshua 10:13)

WHAT IS A MIRACLE? 3 - Aqui 2/ Events in which God does something which nature can do, but not in that order (seeing after being blind; walking after being paralysed - Mark 8:22). These miracles are events that could exist in nature but not in that order) 3/ Events which occur when God does what is normally done by the working of nature, but without the operation of the principles of nature (someone being instantly cured, which doctors might be able to do given sufficient time)

WHAT IS A MIRACLE? 4 – Aq/Hu Aquinas was saying that some miracles involve quite ordinary processes but brought about without the causes which usually bring them about. We must start with Aquinas to understand where David Hume was coming from. Hume purposely narrowed Aquinas’ first definition in order to dismiss miracles as supernatural events. Hume’s definition of miracles is: “A transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity or by the interposition of some invisible agent.”

WHAT IS A MIRACLE? 5 - Swin Richard Swinburne gives some biblical examples of Hume’s transgressions: 1/ Levitation - resurrection from the dead in full health of a man whose heart has not been beating for 24 hours & who was dead also by other currently used criteria. 2/ Water turning into wine without the assistance of chemical apparatus or a catalyst. BUT can these examples not better fit Aquinas’ 2nd and 3rd definitions where the timescale and order are altered?

WHAT IS A MIRACLE? 6 - Swin Hume’s transgression is not considered sufficient for Swinburne. A miracle must hold some significance. He redefines a miracle as, “An interruption that bears some deeper, usually religious, significance.” Swinburne gives the following example: If God intervened in the natural order to make a feather land here, rather than there, or if he upset a child’s toy-box just for spite, these events would not normally be described as miracles.

WHAT IS A MIRACLE? 7 - Holl R F Holland suggests that events do not have to break any laws of nature to be called miraculous. He says: “A coincidence can be taken religiously as a sign and called a miracle.” He gives the example of the mother whose baby’s pram wheels are stuck in a railway track with a train bearing down on her. She prays for a miracle and the train driver faints, releases the dead-man’s lever and the train screeches to a halt inches away from the pram. No law of nature broken but the mother would believe that a miracle had occurred.

Can Miracles occur? - 1 According to Holland’s definition, they occur all the time but he admits it can be confusing. This depends on whose definition we accept. Many event can be attributed to coincidence. Hume, forever the sceptic, would deny a definition such as Holland’s. Hume says, “Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happens in the common course of nature”.

Can Miracles occur? - 2 But there are problems if we accept the more traditional understanding of a miracle that interrupts natural law. 1/ Doubt as to the existence of natural laws. 2/ The argument against miracles from the definition of natural law. 3/ Hume’s critique of miracles.

Doubt as to the existence of natural laws Brian Davis explains that for some people, “God is as present in what is not miraculous as he is in the miraculous”. He believes God is ‘omnipresent’ so it makes no sense to say he ‘intervenes’ if God is equally present in every action. But most theists, though, believe God sustains the world by putting natural laws in place, but in exceptional circumstances he can choose to interrupt his own laws.

Definition of natural law - 1 John Hick defines natural laws as “generalisations formulated retrospectively to cover whatever has, in fact, happened”. Hick argues that any unusual event would just make us widen our understanding of the natural law to incorporate the possibility of the new event. No law could ever be broken as the law would be re-defined in light of the new empirical evidence. An extension of ‘God of the Gaps’!

Definition of natural law - 2 On the surface, Hick’s argument appears strong. We can understand that if Concorde landed 300 years ago, it would have been deemed a miracle as people then had no concept of aerodynamics. But, although me have to allow some flexibility, natural laws give a generally accurate picture. Even Hick admits, “there are unusual and striking events evoking and mediating a vivid awareness of God”.

Hume’s critique of miracles - 1 After narrowing Aquinas’ definition, Hume then went on to systematically destroy the credibility of miracles. He does not say miracles don’t ever happen but that it is impossible for us to prove that one has ever happened. He believes that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous and even then, there would be a mutual destruction of arguments.

Hume’s critique of miracles - 2 Hume argues that laws of nature have been supported over countless years by millions of examples that dead men do not return to life, nor that pieces of metal, once dropped, continue to float in the air. Hume seems to be saying it would be far more probable that the report of a miracle must be false rather than true.

Hume’s critique of miracles - 3 Hume goes on to give 4 more reasons why miracles do not happen: 1/ There have never been sufficient people of unquestioned good sense to witness and give evidence for a miracle. 2/ Hume believes that people who report miracles are strongly biased the sensationalism of the event and wish to share it. 3/ Only people from ignorant and barbarous nations report miracles – this was Hume’s little dig at the Roman Catholics. 4/ He believed that reports of miracles from different faiths cancelled each other out.

A critique of Hume 1 – Part B The whole point of a miracle is that it is an exception to the rule and as such does not challenge the general rule. To accept Hume’s argument we would have to challenge many new scientific developments – such as Concorde! Swinburne said there were 3 types of evidence in support of miracles: 1/ Our apparent memories 2/ The testimony of others 3/ Physical traces left behind by the event.

A critique of Hume 2 – Part B Hume never stated what a ‘ sufficient number of men’ would entail. Most nations have reports of miracles It is objectionable that eye-witnesses should require proof of intelligence. All miracle accounts are NOT mutually exclusive. Hume’s arguments do not mean that miracles could not occur.

DO miracles occur? 1 – Part B Do miracles in fact occur? If so, what do they prove? If we assume the possibility of miracles there are still criticisms as to whether or not they have occurred: 1/ Can they be explained away as coincidence? 2/ Some miracles appear pointless 3/ Some are rejected on moral grounds. 4/ Some are supported by insufficient evidence.

DO miracles occur? 2 – Part B COINCIDENCE Allowing for Holland’s definition, Coincidence does not necessarily have to be that extraordinary. Eg – Mummified Hand POINTLESSNESS Some events have no particular deep significance and some apparent miracles seem to be fairly trivial and pointless. – Eg Dried Blood Liquefying

DO miracles occur? 3 – Part B REJECTION ON MORAL GROUNDS Why should God miraculously intervene to help one person and not another – this shows an arbitrary God who is not compatible with the theistic definition of ALL loving? Maurice Wiles asks, why does God intervene to answer some prayers and not others? Why not rescue 6 million Jews rather than turn water into wine to satisfy some wedding guests?

DO miracles occur? 4 – Part B INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE In some cases it is obvious that the evidence is slightly biased or maybe elaborated on. Some newspaper reports are ‘sexed up’ to sell more newspapers when the real evidence is probably rather flimsy.

What do miracles prove? – Part B Swinburne suggests that a miracle would point to the existence of agents other than human. Suppose a woman with a tumour, overnight discovers that it has vanished. It would be reasonable to suppose a miracle had occurred. But it could be a natural explanation that we have as yet undiscovered.

MIRACLES CONCLUSION 1 It depends on out prior beliefs as to whether we believe in miracles and whether we attribute them to a theistic God. Ockham’s razor might apply where we should accept the simplest explanation for a seemingly miraculous event. The simplest explanation for a believer is always the God of classical theism, but for a non-believer it never would be.

MIRACLES CONCLUSION 2 If miracles do happen, what can they prove? Christians might say The Glory of God We can redefine a miracle, in the light of the above, as an unexpected event that points to a positive significance outside of the event itself. Aquinas, Hume & Swinburne postulate a realist, interventionist concept of God. Holland, Hick and Davies support an anti-realist, omnipresent concept of God.