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.....