miracles/religious language LIMBUS

Question 1

miracles (1)
support for miracles (2)
challenges to belief in miracles (3)

Answer 1

• (1) ‘miraculum’, Ms subjective, 3 (against reg occ, signi, ascribe rel signi), G as omnis
• (2) scripture (Genesis, Exodus), witnesses ought respect, Ms exceptional, so understandable; LofN possibly fluid, descriptive not prescriptive (broad, polkinghorne, pannenberg)
• (3) can’t be cross-checked, projection, subjective (becker, hick, vardy)

Question 2

aquinas (1)
hume (2)

Answer 2

• (1) ‘a violation miracle’, G uncreated, solely performs Ms; Ms beneficial to recipient; G: ‘primary cause’ (direct interv) vs G: ‘secondary cause’ (human agents)
• 3: G did/N can’t, G did/N can but not in this order, G did/without workings of N
• (2) ‘violation of LofN’, G violates LofN/intervenes via external agent, expressed divine cause
• H> Hard: LofN hard/fixed; if broken, merely misstated LofN
• H> Soft: LofN have exceptions/’could’, but proving is impossible

Question 3

r.f. holland (1)
swinburne (2)

Answer 3

• (1) 1920/’a contingency miracle’; coincidence interpreted as miracle = a miracle
• interpretation/subj, Ms valid irrespective of LofN
• (2) 1934/’a violation miracle’; supports H, replaced phrase—’violation of LofN’:
• ‘an occurrence of a non-repeatable counter-instance to a LofN’
• S> Ms must contribute to religious ends+quick timescale; not violate FW

Question 4

hume - general (1)
hume challenge 1 (2)

Answer 4

• (1) classical, empiricist, a posteriori, LofN
• (2) Ms impo to prove, but not inherently impo; never enough evidence (atkins, hick, moore, dawkins)
• S^> trust witnesses/‘principle of evidentiality’/until proven untrustworthy

Question 5

hume challenge 2 (1)
criticisms of hume’s challenges (2)

Answer 5

• (1) lack of reliable testimony; subj/bias; lacks empiricism/rational inquiry/conflicting claims (angels, ross, , atkins, howard)
• S^>standards too high/Ms reported internationally (Buddha, Daosim, Muslim)
• H> only valid thing is Ms conflict/are incompatible
• (2) claims+corroborated physical evidence (davies)
• miracles may support other miracles (howard)
• polkinghorne, swinburne