1
Q
Summarise realist views (generally)
A
Realist understandings hold that:
* Scientific theories give us true descriptions of the world
* Scientific theories give us knowledge of things we believe to exist but that we cannot observe (e.g. quarks)
* The world is mind-independent; exists the way it is regardless of what we think
2
Q
Summarise Realist views on miracles
A
- Realist view of miracles = miracles are real, and thus can be examined and researched, despite the fact that we don’t understand everything about them.
- Miracles are real events brought about by God (or someone empowered by God).
- Miracles are evidence of God’s existence and of his care for the world.
3
Q
What are the 3 aspects of a Realist understanding of miracles?
A
Realists understand miracles as:
1. extraordinary coincidences of a beneficial nature
2. an event brought about by the power of God or another spiritual power, working through people
3. a violation of natural law
4
Q
Give an example of a miracle as an extraordinary coincidence of a beneficial nature
A
- West Side Baptist Church exploded from a gas leak at the exact time choir practice was due to begin, but every punctual member was coincidentally delayed so none were harmed - seen as miraculous because: it was an extraordinary coincidence that saved lives, there’s evidence that it really happened in the world, and it can be examined and researched.
- Juliane Koepcke being the sole survivor of a plane crash.
5
Q
Give 3 examples of miracles as events brought about by the power of God, working through people
A
- Moses parting the Red Sea
- Jesus healing the blind woman
- People cannot become a Saint in the Catholic Church until they have performed a miracle because they are taken as signs of God’s action through that person, and therefore of his endorsement of their status. The Catholic Church investigates and verifies miracles, aligning with realist understandings.
6
Q
What is natural law and how does it relate to miracles?
A
- Natural law = the way nature works
- It defines what is and isn’t possible
- Miracles are therefore things that couldn’t have happened if it was just nature at work, thus requiring supernatural/divine intervention
- Classic view of miracles being a violation of natural law comes from Hume: ‘a miracle is a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition by God’
7
Q
Give an example of a miracle as a violation of natural law
A
- Jesus’ resurrection
- Moses parting the Red Sea
8
Q
Descriptive evil gaps
Are there any issues to seeing miracles as a violation of natural law?
A
- Modern science does not accept the fact natural laws can be violated
- This is based on the scientific conviction that laws of nature are descriptive (they sum up what has been found to happen), rather than prescriptive (what must happen)
- Miracles cannot be violations of natural law; either evidence is faulty, or, as summarised by Hick, ‘if there appears to be an exception to a law of nature, than the law simply expands to include the exception’
- God is a ‘God of the gaps’ - currently being used as an explanation to fill the gaps in scientific understanding, but will be made redundant as an explanation by new scientific discoveries - this narrows God’s role
- This understanding of miracles also raises the problem of evil; if God intervenes in nature when he wants to, why is there still suffering in the world?
9
Q
Overall issues with realist understandings of miracles
A
- (1,2&3) Problem of evil: If God intervenes in some cases, why not in greater tragedies? This raises questions about fairness and God’s goodness.
- (1) Dependence on interpretation: The same event (e.g. coincidence, recovery) can be explained naturally without invoking God, depending on what blik you have.
- (3) Conflicts with scientific laws: Miracles seem to break the regularity of nature, making them difficult to reconcile with scientific understanding.
- (1,2&3) Lack of proof: While events can be verified, attributing them to God cannot be empirically proven - it rests on faith. Kierkegaard however would probably not see this as an issue.
10
Q
Strengths of a realist understanding of miracles
A
- Compatible with faith in God: Supports belief in a personal God who intervenes in the world out of love and purpose (but this invokes the problem of evil)
- Evidential value: If miracles are real and verifiable (e.g. healings, survival stories), they can be used as evidence for God’s existence (but what kind of God? of gaps….evil…..)
- Consistent with science: Just as science accepts unobservable entities (e.g. quarks), miracles too may be real even if not fully understood (however 3rd aspect inconsistent due to natural laws being viewed as descriptive by science)
- Compatibility of how people usually view miracles in the world (Juliane Koepcke)
11
Q
Mind-independent, transcendent, mental
Anti-realist views on miracles
A
- Anti-realists hold that we cannot have knowledge of a mind-independent world, as any phenomena we observe are then interpreted through the mind.
- The idea of miraculous intervention in this world by a transcendent God is not a sensible idea as we cannot observe a transcendent realm
- For anti-realists, a miracle might be seen as something that lifts the spirit or transforms a community of people.
- When an anti-realist talks about miracles, they are informing us about their mental states or attitudes
12
Q
Who are the two key scholars that provide an anti-realist understanding of miracles?
A
- Paul Tillich, who sees miracles as sign-events
- R.F. Holland, who sees miracles as coincidences, with life-changing interpretations
13
Q
What are Paul Tillich’s views on miracles?
A
- For Tillich, miracles are ‘sign-events’ which cannot be separated from their religious context
- For something to qualify as a miracle, it must: be astonishing WITHOUT breaking a law of nature, point to the mystery of being, and be a sign/symbol within a religious experience
- He provides an anti-realist view: there is no commitment to the idea of God as ‘a being’ who, from a transcendent realm, intervenes to bring about a miracle, and no nature of law is violated
- Stresses the subjective element of the apprehension of a miracle; others would observe the same events but not see them as miracles
14
Q
What are R.F. Holland’s views on miracles?
A
- Holland, an anti-realist, uses the story of the boy on the train tracks to say that there is nothing miraculous about coincidences except for the way they are interpreted
- A child’s toy car gets stuck on a railway as an express train approaches. Although the driver can’t stop in time, the train halts because he faints and his hand slips off the lever, triggering the automatic brakes. The child is unharmed, and the mother perceives it as a miracle, even after learning the natural explanation.
- It would be a confusion, according to Holland, to understand this event as a violation of natural order. What makes it ‘miraculous’ for the mother is that it is a beneficial coincidence that makes sense within the context of her religious life.
15
Q
Issues of anti-realist understandings of miracles
A
- Too dependent on interpretation - miracles will vary according to the values, hopes and intentions of the people concerned - this is an issue for realists and religious believers (such as Catholic Church) for whom the objective truth of miracles is very important
- Weakens traditional beliefs about God (not transcendent, doesn’t violate natural law)
- Raises questions about the existence of God: is he real, or just a psychological reality?
16
Q
Strengths of anti-realist understandings of miracles
A
- It doesn’t necessarily mean that God had nothing to do with miracles if they are just natural events - because based on interpretation; it matters how ‘God-blind you are’ (depends on worldview/blik)
- Based on interpretation so avoids problem of evil - God is not selectively intervening
- Avoids conflicts with science as natural laws aren’t violated
- Emphasises personal experience, so doesn’t need empirical proof
17
Q
How does Hume define miracles?
A
- He takes a realist view and defines a miracle as ‘a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent’
18
Q
What based on, what he presents, what supports
Summarise Hume’s critique of miracles
A
- Hume critique of miracles is based on his emprical assumptions; that ‘a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence’ and religion is based on (incorrect) factual claims
- He presents an inductive argument against miracles: the more improbable a claim, the more reliable a witness needs to be in order to be believed; the most improbable claim would be a violation of the laws of nature (e.g. repeated and tested experiences show that we cannot walk on water, and all that evidence contradicts any report that we can); so the reported event is maximally improbable; so the probability that the witnesses are lying or mistaken is always greater than the probability that a miracle has occured
- Therefore, he says that ‘no human testimony can have such force to prove a miracle, and make it a just foundation for any… system of religion’
- Hume’s supporting arguments from psychology also dismiss miracles as: they are the product of weak education and ignorance; witnesses tend to be sympathetic to the idea of miracles (not only more likely to believe it, but also likely to spread false testimonies to push religious agendas); they come from ‘ignorant and barbarous’ nations; and the conflicting miracle-claims among the world religions (they cannot all be true, and any argument against other faiths’ miracles is actually against your own)
19
Q
Strengths of Hume’s critique of miracles
A
- Reasonable and plausible that mistakes, exaggeration, or deception are more likely than an actual suspension of natural laws.
- Hume’s points about bias, education, emotional involvement, and the tendency of groups to spread exciting stories align with contemporary understanding of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning.
- Inconsistencies, human error, and culturally distant worldviews make Bible accounts of miracles even less credible - while faith may be able to overcome these issues, Hume’ reasoning seems to be closer to the truth
- Emphasis on evidence valuable: so central to some denominations (e.g. Catholic Church) so should be properly proven if going to base such important decisions on the realness of miracles (e.g. who’s a Saint)
20
Q
Weaknesses of Hume’s critique of miracles
A
- No inductive argument can ever be certain, so however improbable miracles might be, we cannot say for certain that they do not happen (but goes both ways)
- Sees natural laws as prescriptive, when it is largely agreed that they are descriptive; we cannot say for certain that miracles are not the exception to the rule (but Hume says that there can never be sufficient evidence to prove a miracle, not that a miracle can’t occur - also dealing in probability because making an inductive argument)
- Claim that miracles only occur among the “ignorant and barbarous” is biased and weakens his case because it appeals to cultural prejudice rather than rational analysis (but the rest of the argument still stands)
21
Q
What’s Wiles view on miracles?
A
- Wiles’ main argument is that God does not act in the world through miracles. Agrees with Tillich that language about miracles is symbolic, not literal.
- The view that God does perform miracles has happened because God has been thought of as controlling/intervening in the laws of nature, but for Wiles this idea cannot be upheld as if God did act in this way, then God would seem to act immorally
- If God did intervene selectively to save some but not others, then the problem of evil would be unsolvable, because there would be no justifiable reason why God could not intervene all the time
- Instead, Wiles takes an anti-realist view and says that miracles are to do with our fight against evil. Biblical miracles are symbolic myths used to express something about God (e.g. parting the Red Sea and omnibenevolence); in Mark’s Gospel Jesus’ healing miracles are presented as part of his campaign to oppose evil.
- Jesus refused Satan’s trap of trying to use miracles as evidence of divine power - thus God does not act in this way, and miracles should not be used to prove existence of God
- Rather than seeing miracles in the world, Wiles says that creation is the one and only miracle
22
Q
Strengths of Wiles’ view of miracles
A
- Wiles offers a plausible response to the problem of evil by refusing to treat God as someone who intervenes occasionally and arbitrarily. This avoids the morally troubling idea of a God who saves some people but ignores countless others. In that sense, his view appears more consistent with divine justice and omnibenevolence.
- By treating miracles symbolically rather than literally, Wiles avoids conflict with science and natural law.
- His symbolic/anti-realist interpretation allows biblical miracle narratives to retain significance without requiring belief in supernatural violations of nature. This is a strong way of keeping their moral and spiritual value while avoiding historical or scientific difficulties.
- Wiles’ reading aligns with Jesus’ refusal to use miracles as proof of divine power. This gives his view scriptural plausibility, showing that a non-literal approach can still be rooted in Christian teaching.
23
Q
Weaknesses of Wiles’ view of miracles
A
- If God never acts directly in the world, critics argue that this makes God seem passive or detached. This can be seen as a weakness because it risks reducing God to a purely symbolic or deistic figure, which many believers would find inadequate.
- Miracle of Jesus’ resurrection priceless to Christian faith, yet Wiles reduced it to symbolism
24
Q
What are the differences between Hume and Wiles’ approach to miracles?
A
- Hume is an atheist who assumes that there is no God who can violate natural laws, Wiles is a Christian who assumes that there is a God who chooses not to intervene
- Hume assumes that belief in Christianity and miracles is irrational, Wiles starts from within the framework of Christian belief and Hume’s interventionist account is completely irrelevant to him
- Hume is realist whereas Wiles is anti-realist
- Hume assumes that accounts of miracles
25
Significance of realist approaches for religion
* Biblical significance – the Gospels record many miracles brought about by Jesus himself, which gospel writers saw as signs of arrival of God's Kingdom.
* Understanding miracles as real is central to the Christian faith: Jesus' resurrection incredibly important, with St Paul saying that if Christ was not raised, faith is futile
* Miracles show that God intervenes providentially as a demonstration of his power and love, aligning with belief in a personal, omnibenevolent God
* People cannot become a Saint in the Catholic Church until they have performed a miracle because they are taken as signs of God's action through that person, and therefore of his endorsement of their status. The Catholic Church investigates and verifies miracles, aligning with realist understandings.
* If miracles are real and verifiable (e.g. healings, survival stories), they can be used as evidence for God’s existence
26
Problems of realist approaches for religion
* Seeing miracles as a violation of natural law narrows God's role due to the descriptivist understanding of natural law; God is a 'God of the gaps' - currently being used as an explanation to fill the gaps in scientific understanding, but will be made redundant as an explanation by new scientific discoveries
* The idea of miracles as the actions of an all-loving and all-powerful God raises the problem of evil - miracles occur occasionally and arbitrarily, which casts a morally troubling idea of a God who saves some people but ignores countless others (Keith Ward tries to overcome this problem of selectivity by saying that miracles instead have universal significance as they disclose to humanity God's intentions for the universe (e.g. resurrection = promise of afterlife), and that all could perform miracles (like Catholic saints) if they open themselves up to God. However, this doesn’t genuinely address the underlying moral issue. If God’s “intentions for the universe” are revealed through rare miracle-events while vast amounts of seemingly pointless suffering—such as the Holocaust—continue unchecked, then Ward’s view still implies that God chooses not to intervene in horrific situations. This makes divine love or justice appear no less problematic)
27
Significance of anti-realist approaches for religion
* Profound personal significance: boy on train tracks, Tillich and 'sign-events'
* Wiles offers a plausible response to the problem of evil by refusing to treat God as someone who intervenes occasionally and arbitrarily. This avoids the morally troubling idea of a God who saves some people but ignores countless others. In that sense, his view appears more consistent with divine justice and omnibenevolence.
* Reveal God's intentions about the world
28
Problems of anti-realist approaches for religion
* Is God a real being, or just a psychological reality?
* Too dependent on interpretation - miracles will vary according to the values, hopes and intentions of the people concerned - this is an issue for realists and religious believers (such as Catholic Church) for whom the objective truth of miracles is very important
* Weakens traditional beliefs about God (not transcendent, doesn't violate natural law)
* If God never acts directly in the world, critics argue that this makes God seem passive or detached. This can be seen as a weakness because it risks reducing God to a purely symbolic or deistic figure, which many believers would find inadequate.
* Miracle of Jesus' resurrection priceless to Christian faith, yet Wiles reduced it to symbolism
29
Battle of the bands: do you think realist or anti-realist understandings provide a better approach to miracles and why?
* Anti-realist understandings seem stronger because they preserve the meaning and moral force of miracle stories without requiring belief in events that conflict with natural law or raise the problem of evil.
* Realist views better reflect traditional Christian belief, but they struggle with selective intervention and the improbability of miracle testimony. Anti-realism avoids these issues by treating miracles as expressions of divine purpose and as having personal significance rather than literal violations of nature, though this does make God feel less active.
30
Can miracles happen?
* The evidence for them is incredibly weak; the testimony is far more likely to be mistaken (Hume)
* God selectively intervening creates serious moral problems
* Literal miracles also conflict with how natural laws work, meaning a realist view becomes scientifically and ethically implausible.
* While anti-realism avoids these issues, it essentially redefines miracles into symbolism rather than actual events, which means, in practice, miracles still don’t happen.
* If realist, miracles exist, but undermines God; if anti-realist, miracles don't exist, but still undermines God - cannot believe in miracles if you're a religious believer, or if you're not.
RS1: Philosophy
flashcards
Decks in class (6)
# Cards
