For religious people, miracles are used to prove that God intervenes in our daily lives and his existence
What is a miracle?
An interruption to the process of nature that cannot be explained by natural laws
Bears a deeper/religious significance than just breaking laws of nature
When an 'invisible agent' affects the working days of the universe
Swinburne's examples:Levitation, resurrection, water into wine etc
Aquinas: Miracles as interventions
'Those things must properly be called
miraculous which are done by divine power
apart from the order generally followed in things'
Three definitions of miracles: 1.Events done by God that cannot be done by nature
2.Events which God does something nature can do but not in this order
3..Events that occur when God does what is usually done by the working of nature, but
without the operation of the principles of nature
E.g. When someone ill recovers miraculously
Hume: A law of nature tells us how bodies must behave when uninterfered with but a miracle occurs when the world is not
left to itself
E.g.Jesus' resurrection; people can die and come back to life but not 24 hours later
E.g.If gravity stopped working
Ray Holland: Miracles as interpretations
A religious person will interpret an event as a gift from God/miracle
A non-religious would say it was a piece of luck/coincidence
Even if an event is explainable by laws of nature, it can still be
interpreted as a miracle if it is taken as a religious sign
A.K.A:The 'contingency miracle' - the presence of religious significance is
sufficient
Richard Swinburne: Miracles as having religious
significance
There are objective events which are miracles whether interpreted as such or not
Sort of agrees with Holland
David Hume
A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature
Hume's method was sceptical and critical
The accounts/testimony of others allow us to form beliefs and may contribute to our knowledge
testimony can be unreliable and falser so we must be critical...
Is there a contrary testimony?
What is the character of the witness?
How many witnesses were there?
How they delivered their testimony
Does the witness have an interest in what they claim?
We like to tell and hear remarkable stories
Testimonies often come from those less enlightened
We shouldn't disregard things as miracles however to accept them as miracles is challenging
The Indian Prince; our experience will always be limited so we might draw false conclusions
'Wise men proportion their belief to their evidence'
We should believe in that which has happened the most often or has the greatest weight of evidence
Laws of nature were extremely strong evidence form experience
Needs to be infallible evidence to proceed with confidence
Catch 22..
'A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as firm and unalterable experience
has established these laws, the proof against a miracle...is as entire as any argument
from experience can possibly be imagined.'
To identify a miracle, we must compare it to the uniform laws it breaks and in doing so we
highlight the evidence against the miracle which is more substantial and therefore overthrows the
proposed miracle
Always reject the greater
miracle..
In doing so, one is following the greatest weight of evidence and rejecting the most unlikely
scenario
'...no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless...its falsehood would be more miraculous (than it's truth).'
Possibility...
'...no human testimony can have such force as to prove a miracle, and make it a foundation for any such system of religion'
Many Christians use Jesus' miracles to support their religion as Jesus used miracles to prove his
divinity; his oneness with his heavenly father
Hume accepts the possibility of miracles but not that there is any evidence for them