miracles/religious language LIMBUS Flashcards

1
Q

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

A
  • (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)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

aquinas (1)
hume (2)

A
  • (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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

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

A
  • (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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

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

A
  • (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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

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

A
  • (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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly