3F: Miracles - probability

Question 1

Hume was an empiricist. What does this mean?

Answer 1

he focuses on evidence

Question 2

Hume was agnostic. What does this mean?

Answer 2

We can’t know if God exists

Question 3

How does Hume weight up the probabilities of a miracle being true?

Answer 3

• he says that the person claiming to have a miracle is more likely to be lying/been lied to than an actual miracle occurring
• “this person should either deceive or be deceived”

Question 4

Summary of Hume’s susceptibility of belief

Answer 4

• no miracle claim is supported by multiple well-educated people, they are often supported by people without a reputation to uphold

Question 5

Summary of Hume’s susceptibility of belief (abandoning logic and reason)

Answer 5

• the feeling received from religion is so strong that it makes us believe we like to be surprised/amazed, so we abandon logic and reason
• “The passion of surprise and wonder […] gives a sensible tendency towards the belief of those events”

Question 6

Summary of Hume’s credibility of witnesses

Answer 6

• if people believe miracles it is likely they are from ‘uneducated’ nations
• “they are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous nations”
• Context; Hierarchy of societies - the West was considered rich, civilised and intelligent. Everywhere else was considered barbarous and ignorant

Question 7

Summary of Hume’s contradictory reports of miracles occurring in different religions

Answer 7

• miracles in different religions cancel each other out
• if you accept a miracle in one religion , it disproves another as your are implying your own one is wrong
• “whatever is different is contrary”

Question 8

What are some problems with Hume’s view?

Answer 8

• Hick: we do not know the laws of nature, and they appear to have been broken before. When new things are observed our understanding of the natural law should simply be widened
• Broad: rejects Hume’s assumption that there are known fixed laws of nature - what if the laws of nature as we know them are wrong?
• Well documented miracles eg Lourdes
• Clack and Clack: Hume has not provided a satisfactory solution to the problem of miracles because he has confused improbability with impossibility. Miracles are unusual events but this doesn’t mean they haven’t occurred

Question 9

What are Swinburne’s four types of historical evidence for miracles?

Answer 9

• Memories of our experience
• Testimony by others about their experience
• Physical traces of the event, such as a medical examination of a person that has been healed
• Understanding of modern science and what is thought to be physically impossible or highly improbable

Question 10

For Swinburne, what does the possibility of miracles rely on?

Answer 10

Principles of testimony and credulity

Question 11

What does Swinburne have to say about Hume’s definition of miracles?

Answer 11

• “violation of the laws of nature by deity”
• All natural laws are capable of being corrected, they can change if there is a new discovery. Hume doesn’t consider this in his argument
• Hume based his empiricism on things that are observed; scientific advancement has meant that we can now observe what was previously unobservable

Question 12

How does Swinburne define a miracle?

Answer 12

“an occurrence of a non-repeatable counter instance to a law of nature”
- it is illogical to say the law of nature is wrong because of one incident

Question 13

What is the principle of credulity?

Answer 13

If it seems that X is present, then X is probably present. What one seems to perceive is probably the case.

Question 14

What is the principle of testimony?

Answer 14

In the absence of special consideration, people tend to tell the truth more than they lie. There are also other evidences to testimonies

Question 15

How does Swinburne question Hume’s ‘ignorant and barbarous’ statement?

Answer 15

• What is the criteria for this? Does it just mean people unfamiliar with science?

Question 16

How does Swinburne question Hume’s ‘in destroying a rival system, it likewise destroys the credit’ statement?

Answer 16

• Religions do not intend to prove each other wrong from right: it is a contradiction in his argument as this argument rests on the premise that different religions destroy each others credibility

Question 17

Reasons to suggest challenges to belief of miracles are convincing

Answer 17

• It could be that a law of nature was just incomplete and there is a law that includes the circumstance that occurred
• The extent to which the credibility of the witness is persuasive will be influenced by a persons worldview
• Hume’s argument that no miracle could seemingly be justifiably challenged by the claim by St Paul that the resurrected Jesus was seen by at least five hundred people
• the resurrection accounts may have been written long after the alleged event and may not have been meant to be taken literally. Also, they were written by people who may have had a vested interest
• miracles appear to limit God in time.
• an interventionist God would have to be limited to the time frame of the event in order to intervene. This is incompatible with the idea of God being outside of time.
• The idea that miracles are trivial acts and so present God as a monster figure has been challenged by various attempts at providing some sort of theodicy
• If God is able to intervene, then why doesn’t he address the real problems of the world more directly by means of miracles?
• Maurice Wiles: a God who acts in such a trivial way is a God not worthy of worship. This implies that miracles do not happen if belief in a traditional God is to be maintained
• miracles contradict science and that to conclude that an event is caused by God because it appears to break a law of nature is to resort to a God of the gaps argument
• people who claim miracles seem to abandon reason when they do so.
• It is unreasonable to believe that the whole structure of the world has been demolished by a miraculous act which breaks the established laws of nature.

Question 18

Reasons to suggest challenges to belief of miracles are unconvincing

Answer 18

• The view that miracles are a breaking of a law of nature could be seen as putting God into the role of spectator of events. He is a God who is outside of the universe and who observes events.
• Religious believers may argue that prayer is consistent with such a view, in that in praying, believers are asking God to intervene. Some also combine a belief that miracles break laws of nature with a belief that laws of nature are the means by which God sustains the universe.
• testimony is not the only evidence for miracles. Physical effects can be seen such as a healed withered hand or X-rays, etc.
• science is not invalidated if God intervenes and from time to time breaks the laws of nature. It just means that on those occasions science’s predictions based on those laws will be incorrect. Science is neutral and has limitations.
• There are some things that we can justifiably believe in with little evidence.
• There might not be a large amount of testimony to miracles, but there shouldn’t be. Miracles are relatively isolated events which may happen to individuals in private.
• just because there are a number of claims to something, it does not thereby make all of the claims wrong.
• It is perfectly reasonable to accept that a miracle can break the structure of the universe;

Question 19

Reasons to suggest Swinburne’s responses to Hume are valid

Answer 19

• Swinburne’s rephrasing of ‘a violation of a law of nature’ seems helpful: makes clear that identification of a breaking of the law of nature requires that the exception to the natural order is temporary and it is an exception to the ordinary course of nature
• Swinburne’s addition to the definition that includes ‘purpose is important’. This fits in with the idea of religious ‘signs’ rather than a God who just shows off.
• There are various miracles in the sacred texts, which Swinburne seems to acknowledge, do concern doctrine.
• Swinburne seems correct in drawing attention to the different weighting that should be given to various witnesses.

Question 20

Reasons to suggest Swinburne’s responses to Hume are invalid

Answer 20

• Swinburne’s rephrasing of ‘a violation of a law of nature’ still does not address the naturalist position.
• It could be argued that Hume’s argument is reasonable since the witnesses must be trustworthy and reliable.

Question 21

Quote from Maurice Wiles

Answer 21

“Why water into wine, but not the Holocaust?”