Miracles

1. Miracles

2. What is your understanding of a miracle? • Write down 3 events you think would be classed as miraculous. • Are there different sorts of miracles, if so what are they? • What do miracles mean to believers? • What do miracles mean to scientists? • What philosophical/ religious questions arise from miracles?

3. Aquinas Aquinas identified three types of miracles: • Events done by God which nature could never do e.g. make the sun go backwards. • Events in which God does something which nature can do but not in this order e.g. someone living after death – resurrection of Christ. • An event which could happen naturally but God breaks the rules of nature. E.g. someone being instantly cured of a disease which doctors might have been able to cure given time.

4. Two General Views on Miracles Anti – Realist View:- Miracles are not literally ‘caused’ by God. They are symbolic. Reveal something about God to a believer – make sense in religious life of believer. God doesn't literally have to have done a ‘real’ action. Supported by John Hick Realist View: - Miracles actually do have to have happened to be meaningful. Faithful people actually believe God has literally caused a miracle.

5. Hume The traditionally accepted definition: “A transgression of the law of nature by a particular volition of the deity.” This means that a miracle occurred whenever God caused a law of nature to be broken.

6. Hume’s Criticisms Hume was an empiricist (experience.) He is not saying the miracles are impossible but its impossible to prove them. • Evidence that miracles do not happen outweigh evidence that they do. “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous.”

7. Never been a miracle witnessed by enough “men” of “unquestioned good sense.” • Religious people are the type to believe emotional miracle stories. • Miracle stories are chiefly found among “ignorant and barbarous nations.” • Miracle testimonies found in all religions cannot all be true – cancel each other out.

8. Criticisms of Hume • What criticisms of Hume can you think of? Is his idea flawless? • What is a law of nature? • Natural law may not be broken but just an incomplete understanding of the natural law on our part – new scientific discoveries all the time. (world flat, universe expanding) • Some scientists argue that there is an fundamental degree of randomness at the basic level of nature. At the end of the day we do not control it.

9. Support of Hume: Richard Swinburne • Reasonable to believe in miracles if all past experiences of natural law goes against an event. • Miracles are events which seem to have deeper significance than the events themselves. “If a God intervened in the natural order to make a feather land here rather than there for no deep ultimate purpose, these events would not naturally be described as miracles.”

10. Write down any miracle and the deeper significance behind it. • Are there any problems with Swinburne's idea? X However people’s perceptions of ‘deeper significance’ alter – subjective.

11. R. F. Holland Even events which do not break (transgress) a law of nature can be viewed as miracles. “a coincidence can be taken religiously as a sign and called a miracle.” – train (miracle to one may be a disaster to another – miracles no more than interpretation.)

12. John Hick God can be seen to cause miracles indirectly via human agency. Give humans inspiration to act in a particular way. John Polkinghorne supports Hick adding that if God works through us God is present in the world not just in Creation. It also leaves open the possibility that God can intervene. Miracles are ordinary events but are seen as miracles through the eyes of faith.

13. Wiles Criticisms of Miracles

14. Maurice Wiles (1923 – 2005) Theologian/ philosopher of religion who argued strongly that miracles are damaging to faith. It is contradictory to believe in an all lovely (Omni -Benevolent) God who would only intervene occasionally to help people. • Its hard to believe in a God who would intervene to feed the 5000 and then ignore the Irish potato famine, or a God who parts the Red Sea but does not intervene in the Holocaust. (This is a good link to the problem of evil)

15. Wiles argued only miracle was the single miracle of Creation. • The problem with miracles is defining what a miracle actually is - subjective • He does grant that direct divine action cannot be dismissed as logically incoherent. But he argues that biblical stories including the virgin birth are legendary without any claim of historical accuracy. Do you think Wiles would have been very popular amongst the Anglican Doctrine Commission? • Rudolf Bultmann agrees that all mythological/ superstitious elements should be taken out of the Bible so the essential truths are revealed.

16. God’s miracles • Creation in 7 days • Giving Life itself- seen as a miracle • Old Testament miracles- parting of red sea • Check out: Amorite Coalition MassacredJoshua 10:1-14 • New Testament miracles- healing blind, raising the dead, walking on water- ‘signs’ Key words: • Arbitrary: random • Partisan: supporter • What issues are raised by these miracles? • Do miracles suggest an arbitrary or partisan God? • What is the theological significance of miracles for Christians? • Can modern people be expected to believe in miracles?

17. X How can God be Omni- benevolent and ignore a child with cancer or poverty? Answer: Peter Vardy- The puzzle of Evil • God can selectively do miracles and still remain omni-benevolent • Too obvious demonstration of God’s power through frequent miracles would lead to loss of free will

18. Other Philosophers • Polkinghorne: Argues that Maurice Wiles’ view of God’s action in the world does not reflect Christian religious experience. • Religious Experience cannot always be explained but is understood by the believer and faith. Modern Views against miracles: • Peter Atkins: People seek publicity or are deluded or hallucinate • Richard Dawkins: Places such as Lourdes could be explained by the placebo effect • Miracles are improbable