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.