The concept of the miraculous has captured the imagination of even non-religious believers and has become a synonym for a surprising and seemingly lucky event. Religious believers on the other hand find a deeper significance, using the miraculous to provide evidence for the existence of God and his continuous involvement within the universe and the relationship he shares with humans.
David Hume defines miracles as
"A transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity or by the interposition of some invisible agent."
Richard Swinburne offers examples of such violations of natural law from evidence in the bible;
- "Resurrection from the dead"
- "Water turning into wine"
- "[A] man getting better from polio in a minute"
Whilst science may offer explanations for all such events Swinburne argues that it is the timescale and instantaneous spontaneity of the event that makes it a miracle. He does however also cliam that for an event to be miraculous it has to hold some religious significance rather than "Upset[ting] a child's toy box" which would indeed fit with Hume's definition of a miracle but would indeed have no significance or portray the nature of God as all powerful and all loving.
What do miracles tell us about God?
The view that God intervenes in the world is in keeping the the THEISTIC understanding of an IMMANENT God, one who is constantly involved.
Aquinas determined 3 different types of interaction that an immanent God would provide;
1. SUSTAINER - The continuation of Earth relying on God's intervention.
2. PRIMARY ACTIONS - i.e. Miracles, an interaction that changes a course.
3. SECONDARY ACTIONS - Refers to how God maintains his "will" within us.
It is worth pointing out that miracles are VIOLATIONS OF NATURE. God's intervention is therefore a violation of his own laws to bring about his will which suggests that he has not created a predetermined plan and therefore arguably may not be the one who determined everything in the first place! This poses a question susceptible to much debate:
Does God Violate Natural Laws?
There are religious, scientific and philisophical challenges to the belief that God violates natural laws which include:
1. Doubt as to the existence of natural laws.
We may only accept miracles, violations of natural laws, if we have fully accepted the existence of natural laws. In scientific terms a natural law is something that cannot be broken, for example; gravity is a force that cannot be surpassed on Earth. Scientific understanding may merely describe the behaviour of nature and cannot control or dictate it. In religious terms natural law is a theory created by Thomas Aquinas and that has been adopted by the Roman Catholic Church, stating that all that is natural is good as God created it and we should live according to nature’s intentions.
- THEISTS may not accept this definition of miracles as a violation, as they believe that God intervenes in everything "As present in the not miraculous as he is in the miraculous." (Brian Davies) If he is equally present then Hume's definition of "A volition of the Deity" would make everything a miracle as God has intervened in everything. However, some theists would say that it is THROUGH natural lwas that God sustains and in expcetion circumstances may choose to interrupt such laws, which is more in keeping with Hume's definition.
2.Arguments against miracles.
- The definition of natural law prevents anything being deemed as a miracle as it is based on a priori knowledge, "a generalisation" as John Hicks stated that after a posteriori knowledge of a certain previously unwitnessed event should then widen our understanding of natural laws, not be descrived as a violation. SOMETHING CAN NOT BREAK A LAW WHEN THE LAW IS BASED ON EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE.
- The God of the Gaps theory, continuing from John Hicks' argument. As our understanding is continually developing there may be a time when science can answer all the question and therefore remove the label of "violation" of our understanding as instead of conflicting, events such as "miracles" will be encompassed within our understanding. This somewhat makes miracles and indeed religion redundant as the God of the Gaps theory states that religious believers use gaps in scientific knowledge to plant ideas of God's existence. When this gap leaves will there then be no place for God? This theory undermines the concept of faith however and as faith requires no evidence may not be valid.
- The placebo effect. Doctors are becoming more and more aware of the sheer power of the human mind and how it can bring physical improvements i.e. recovering from an illness quickly, when there is sufficient faith and expectation for the event to happen - in the same way that a placebo drug may be used to fool the mind in to thinking recovery is possible. Whilst religious believers would argue that God was merely answering people's prayers scientists would say that the event is not miraculous but rather a feat of the person's own mind/a biological anomalie and therefore down to pure chance.
- Quantumn mechanics remains an unanswered question bit one that could in turn provide answers for strange and apparent "violations" of natural law as mere random unpredictability. However QM, although the building blocks of life, may arguable be irrelevant to miracles.
3. Hume's critique. - See essay below
4. Beliefs that God is TRANSCENDANT not IMMANENT.
- Maurice Wiles, the belied that God performs miracles that violate natural law goes against our understanding of God's relationship with the world. He believes that the world is a SINGLE act of God, whom does not interfere on an individual basis = DEISM
- Nelson Pike state sthat it is not POSSIBLE for God to intervene as God is transcendent from time and therefore has not past, present or future and may be unable to act at a certain point. Some would say Pike has misunderstood the nature of timelessness as though time does not affect God (as stated by Swinburne) this does not affect his ability to act within it or indeed to be omniscient as all knowledge requires logic not prediction of the future.
- Problem of EVIL. Some say God can not interfere in the world at all as this would undermine the free will he gave us that allowed us to choose a life worshipping him or a life of evil. Miracles would compromise such free will. Furthermore why would God only intervent in certain circumstances and not in others e.g. saving the Israelites from Egypt but not the Jews from the Holocaust. After all the Israelites were the JEws ancestors - why should they be saved and not them? Wiles concludes therefore that God does not intervene at all as he does not wish to choose.
No comments:
Post a Comment