Miracles Cont....

So we've done our main guy, Hume. Now to move onto the next 2 big ones - Richard Swinburne and Maurice Wiles.

Swinburne is a modern philosopher who argues for the possibility of miracles, plus criticises David Hume's approach and conclusions. Swinburne argues that the laws of nature are corrigible, and so miracles are perfectly plausible. If a law of nature is corrigible, it means it is statistical, or a probability, rather than a fixed certainty. This therefore gives scope for the laws to be broken, or rather be suspended, for God to be omnibenevolent. We can liken this to a parent setting guidelines for their child, but suspending them if the child is in pain, or pleads for help. Swinburne adds that miracles must be rare in order to drive humanity forward, as otherwise we may begin to expect such occurrences as cancer being miraculously cured, and stop researching into our own cures.

He sets out miracles as being possible by changing the definition of a law of nature, and also uses the Principles of Credulity and Testimony to show they are possible. The Principle of Credulity states 'if X seems to be so, X probably is so', and the Principle of Testimony argues we should accept as much testimony as possible, not rejecting it unless there is sufficient grounds to do so. He outlines a main and subsidiary argument;

Main Argument - the more evidence for the miracle, the more probable the miracle occurred (much like the Principle of Credulity)

Subsidiary Argument - (1) Principle of Testimony - avoid rejecting evidence unless it is clearly invalid
(2) determine the reliability of the evidence you are given (i.e. is it from a doctor talking about a medical hearing, or someone who witnessed the healing)
(3) look for consistency within the witness accounts

If we follow this, we are giving rise to the possibility of miracles - Swinburne's aim. However he does not ever state that miracles do happen, rather that they may, and to determine whether or not they have we should follow these stages.

NB: He critiques Hume as he argues we should take as many witness accounts as possible, so it does not matter if someone is uneducated, their evidence may just be lower in value than someone who is highly educated. He also stated miracles do not cancel each other out, and we cannot define 'ignorant and barbarous'.

Swinburne also noted that there is evidence for miracles within physical signs, memories, and science. Science gives us evidence as it allows us to know what is possible and what is not, so we can see if it is a miraculous occurrence. But Swinburne has problems too - he argued we cannot define ignorant and barbarous, so equally we can ask how do we define someone as untrustworthy enough to reject their evidence? Moreover, testimony is very subjective, so it can be hard to establish truths from it, and we can ask how much evidence is needed to 'prove' something is a miracle?

The last problem with Swinburne, that of the problem of evil, leads nicely into Wiles' rejection of miracles. The Problem of Evil asks how can God be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and allow evil in this world? By Swinburne arguing for miracles he compromises God's omnibenevolence, as how can God be all loving if he gives miracles to some and not others? Why should some be saved when others die in natural disasters and of diseases, but receive no miracle? This led Wiles to propound the moral rejection of miracles.

Wiles argues that for God to be omnibenevolent he cannot complete miracles, as this would make him arbitrary (choosing people at random) and partisan (choosing some over others). If God truly loved everyone he could not allow some people to receive miracles while others suffer, and pray for miracles for themselves. So Wiles argues the only miracle is creation - God cannot intervene in our lives. This is extremely controversial however, and caused him to be removed from his post as Bishop. This is because without miracles Jesus would not have been resurrected - the central pillar of Christianity has been removed. Wiles is therefore not an acceptable option for believers to follow, as he reduces Christianity to prayer alone. Furthermore while he has allowed God's omnibenevolence to remain intact, God cannot be omnipotent if he cannot complete miracles, so it seems he has not solved the Problem of Evil.

Wiles added that the impact of the 'miracle' is the most important thing. For example there have been over 8,000 apparent healings/miracles at Lourdes, a Catholic Pilgrimage location, but less than 1% (67) have been verified. But this should not detract from the meaning of the miracle. If someone believes they have experienced a miracle it will profoundly effect their life, and so has meaning - Tillich and Bultmann would agree with this - it is the meaning of the experience that matters, rather than certifying it as a miracle. We could also defend Wiles by saying it allows educated believers to uphold science and their religion, as miracle accounts can be rejected.

However I see no reason as to why miracles must be arbitrary and partisan, as Wiles argues. God is omniscient, and possesses greater knowledge than we can ever have. This means that miracles may not be arbitrary/partisan at all, it is just that we do not understand God's greater plan - God should not have to conform to our reason, as he is a higher, more intelligent being. It may seem unfair to us, but we do not have the same level of knowledge as him.

So we have now covered the big 3 on miracles, but here are a few more definitions, and what their impact has on the possibility of miracles...

(1) John Hick - Laws of Nature are continually expanding, and cannot be broken. 'Miraculous' events are not miracles, they are simply new occurrences that should be included in these expanding laws.
This means that miracles cannot happen, and he can draw the same conclusion as Hume - they are not possible.

(2) Thomas Aquinas - there are 3 types of miracles...
(a) An event in which God does something nature could never do
(b) An event in which God does something nature could do, but not in the normal order
(c) An event in which God does something nature can do, but with the normal laws suspended
So Aquinas concludes that the laws of nature are not fixed, are breakable, and miracles have a divine origin.

(3) John Polkinghorne - the laws of nature are not fixed laws at all. Quantum mechanics is showing us that at a fundamental level randomness exists, and so miracles are not only possible, but probable.
So Polkinghorne has directly rejected Hume's argument, as the laws of nature do not exist - miracles are possible.

(4) St. Augustine - miracles are natural events that act within the laws of nature, we simply don't understand the laws fully. They are caused by God.
So Augustine argues from a different point of view from all of the above - miracles can occur, but there is no need to break the laws of nature - they can happen within them.

In conclusion, it seems the definition of a miracle you use can dramatically alter your conclusion - Aquinas, Augustine, Swinburne and Polkinghorne all argues for the possibility of miracles, and Hick, Hume and Wiles against, using fairly similar definitions (if they wish to reject miracles). So I cannot say whether or not miracles are possible as it all depends on my definition, which is entirely personal opinion, not hard fact.

Miracles - Definitions are everything

Exam time is looming, less than a week to go now! As OCR has never put a question on miracles on a June paper it seems likely the topic will come up, and so here is an overview of the topic. Miracles is a unique topic from all others as it all hinges on the definition a scholar uses - change the definition of a miracle, and they can become impossible before you even explain yourself. This makes these essays particularly challenging to write, as you must be very subtle with the way you explain things. Anyway, here we go....

Hume is your main guy for miracles - if he's not in  your essay, don't expect a good grade. His definition aims to set out that miracles cannot happen, and comes from a scientific, evidence based, and almost certainly atheist point of view (although in the 1700's he would be publicly discredited if a known atheist, so it is only implied within his work). He sets out a miracle to be a

"transgression of a law of nature brought about by a particular volition of a deity" Of Miracles I

By this Hume means (a) if  they happen, they do not have an earthly origin, and (b) to be classed as a miracle, the event must have broken some of the scientific laws we hold true, for example gravity, medically unexplainable healings, or any other empirically proven law. By saying this Hume has a priori rejected the chance of any miracles happening. This is because a law of nature, when he was writing, meant a fixed, unbreakable truth. The laws are laws - they cannot be broken. There are thousands of pieces of empirical evidence that show these laws are true. Objects always fall to the ground - never upwards or sideways, for example. Because of this he states that it is always more probable that the law was not broken, than this one piece of 'miracle' evidence should make us disregard the thousand of other pieces of evidence. Essentially, Hume states that for it to be a miracle, the evidence for this miracle should outweigh all other evidence that shows the law holds true. And because of this, it is always more likely that the miracle evidence is false, and miracle was nothing more than an odd occurrence. Hence Hume has a priori rejected the possibility of miracles. This is the main, and by far the strongest part of Hume's argument.

However there is a logical fallacy, the fallacy of induction, within Hume's argument. Arguing from induction is logically incorrect, as, in this case, arguing from empirical evidence as Hume does, we cannot include the possibility of new evidence coming forward. Yes we have empirical evidence for the laws of nature, but new evidence could change that law. Matthew Taylor's OCR textbook gives a good example to demonstrate this;

1. Living organisms are observed to need oxygen to survive

2. No living organisms has been observed not needing oxygen to survive

Conclusion - living organisms cannot survive without oxygen. But what about anaerobically respiring organisms? Hume, by arguing through induction, would have to ignore this new evidence, despite it going against the claim.

Furthermore Hume has jumped from saying miracles are improbable to rationally unacceptable - through his argument you cannot claim miracles cannot happen, yet he does. However we can defend Hume - proof by induction works infallibly in mathematics. We must remember though that mathematics deals with fixed, analytical subjects, rather than the subjective nature of a miracle event.

As previously mentioned, Hume has 4 other parts to his critique of miracles, all a posteriori -

(1) miracles tend to only happen to "ignorant and barbarous nations".

(2) miracle accounts from different religions cancel each other out. A Christian would claim a miracle involving the Virgin Mary proves their religion, and a Hindu can experience a different miracle and claim it has proven their religion too, so they cancel out.

(3) only uneducated people experience them, and people exaggerate stories as they circulate.

(4) people who support miracles have a natural tendency to suspend their reason and support the claim.

These are much, much weaker arguments however, easily criticised (so would be your best point of attack when writing an essay). William James' pluralist perspective argues all religions lead to the same path eventually, so miracles do not cancel each other out. Also most miracles involve healings, which do not aim to prove your particular God exists. To counter his 3rd and 4th arguments some miracles can leave physical evidence, which would prevent people from exaggerating claims/supporting unrealistic miracle ideas. And finally, against (1), how do you define ignorant and barbarous? Richard Swinburne uses his Principles of Credulity and Testimony to say unless you have very good reason (i.e. they are a known liar) you should not reject peoples evidence - so we should not simply say they are "ignorant and barbarous", then ignore their claim. 

So it seems while Hume's argument has survived 300 hundred years and is still prominently taught, there are some serious problems with it. But we can still defend Hume! Living in the 1700's means that Hume was fairly correct in what he was saying. Many people in society literally  were uneducated, and so he may be fair to say they would believe in things that may not be so. Also when he says uneducated it would be easy to define who he meant then, as the gap between rich and poor was obvious, in terms of education. Furthermore Steven Evans argues we have interpreted Hume wrongly. When he speaks of "laws of nature" Hume does not mean fixed, unbreakable truths, but probabilities. 

More on miracles in the next post.....