what is the realist view of miracles?
realism is the view that we can have knowledge of a objective reality. realist views of miracles are thus those which regard miracles as objective (mind -independent) events that are caused by god
what is the anti realist view of miracles?
anti realism is the view that we should be sceptical of the ability of the human mind to understand the true nature of objective reality. anti realist views of miracles are those views which regard miracles as subjective events taking place within our minds.
is anti realism the view that miracles are not real?
- no but it is also not the view that miracles are real.
- the question of whether miracles are real or not is beyond our human ability to understand. we should just focus on the meaning and significance of the miracles to our mind.
what are the three types of miracles identified by Aquinas?
Miracles are:
- events done by god that nature could never do
- events that nature can do just not in the order god does them
- events that nature can do but god breaks the rules or principles of nature
what type of view does Aquinas have about miracles?
a realist view on miracles. mind independent events caused by god.
What is Hume’s understanding about miracles?
- a realist understanding of miracles
- they accurately capture the theological belief in miracles held by Christians.
Does Hume believe in miracles?
- no he argues we are never justified in believing that realist miracles happen
- a miracle is ‘ a violation of the law of nature’
what are Hume’s three reasons to doubt testimony of a miracle
- miracles are rare and thus belief a miracle has occurred is more likely to be mistaken
- miracle stories tend to come from ignorant and barbarous nations rather than people of good sense and education
- humans have a tendency to believe wonderous things without justification
what is Hume’s argument from evidence and probability?
- We should proportion our beliefs to the evidence. So, the evidence we have for the miracle must be weighed against the evidence for the law of nature. Only if the evidence for the miracle outweighs the evidence for the law of nature is the evidence for the miracle is stronger
- this is highly unlikely however.
what quote goes with Hume’s argument for evidence and probability.?
” no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous”
what is Swinburne’s response to Hume’s argument for evidence and probability?
- Hume is wrong to think that the only evidence for a miracle is personal testimony from eyewitnesses
- scientific evidence of medical miracles still stands
what is another view against Hume’s argument for evidence and probability?
- if we followed Hume’s logic we would reject all new evidence that hadn’t been experienced before if it contradicted our current understanding of the natural laws since its less likely to be true.
- if this is true then we would never gain new knowledge or progress.
what is Hume’s argument for the low quality of testimony for miracles?
- There is no miracle witnessed by multiple people who were of good sense, education, integrity and reputation. Instead, miracle stories come “chiefly” from ignorant and barbarous nations and when found in civilised people, they tend to be inherited from ignorant and barbarous ancestors.
- It is human nature to feel drawn to surprise and wonder, which makes us likely to believe strange and unusual things despite the belief not being justified.
- what is a quote for Hume’s argument on the low quality of testimony for miracles?
- “The passion of surprise and wonder, arising from miracles, being an agreeable emotion, gives a sensible tendency towards the belief of those events”
- what is Swinburne’s response to Hume’s argument on the low quality of testimony for miracles?
- The principle of credulity argues that you should believe what you experience unless you have a reason not to. The principle of testimony argues that you should believe what others tell you they have experienced, unless you have a reason not to.
- whenever we gain new evidence , we cant dismiss it for no reason. that would be irrational.
what are naturalistic explanations of a miracle?
- Any supposed miracle could be explained by mental illness, epilepsy, random brain hallucinations, fasting, drugs, alcohol, lack of sleep, etc. So, we will always have a reason not to believe any religious experience.
What is Hume’s multiple claims argument?
- testimony for a miracle has the problem that similar testimony exists but by people in other religions.
- The testimony for miracles is full of conflicting testimony from different religions and we have no basis to decide which testimony is more accurate. So, testimony cannot be a valid method for justifying belief in miracles.
- Any miracle claimed to occur in a religion and thought to “establish” the truth of that religion, thereby aims to destroy the truth of other religions,
what is the pluralist response to Hume’s multiple claims argument?
- One could reply with pluralism – the view that all religions are just different cultural manifestations of the divine, therefore all are true.
What is Swinburne’s response to Hume’s multiple claims argument?
- “If there were evidence f or a Roman Catholic miracle which was evidence for the doctrine of transubstantiation and evidence for a Protestant miracle which was evidence against it, here we would have a case of the conflict of evidence which, Hume claims, occurs generally with alleged miracles. But it is enough to give this example to see that most alleged miracles do not give rise to conflicts of this kind. Most alleged miracles, if they occurred, would only show the power of god or gods and their concern for the needs of men, and little else. “
What is R-f hollands understanding of miracles?
- anti-realist
-holland argues that miracles are nothing more than an extraordinary coincidence that is interpreted in a religious way.
what example does holland give to back up his anti-realist view of miracles?
- Holland gives the example of a boy stuck on a railway track with a train approaching. The train driver faints, causing the train to stop which saves the life of the boy. The boy’s mother sees it as a miracle, even though she understands that there is a naturalistic explanation as to why the driver fainted which had nothing to do with the boy on the tracks. Therefore, for Holland miracles depend on interpretation and a sense of divine purpose and significance.
what quote from holland can be used to back up his anti realist view?
- ” a coincidence can be taken religiously as a sign and called a miracle”
what does three things does Tillich define a miracle as being?
1: “an event which is astonishing, unusual, shaking, without contradicting the rational structure of reality”
2: “points to the mystery of being, expressing its relation to us in a definite way.
3: “an occurrence which is received as a sign-event in an ecstatic experience”
what view does tillich hold on miracles?
- an anti realist view
- he defines miracles as part of our subjective experience ,not as something occurring in objective reality.
