Miracles
Definitions of a Miracle
Aquinas
• His definition of miracles is as ‘those things done by divine power apart from the
order usually followed in things’.
• This view suggests that God can do what he wants with his creation.
Has identified 3 types of miracles:
1. An event done by God which nature could not do – could be said to be the most
traditional approach. They are acts that contradict our regular experience. Aquinas
uses the example of the reversal of the course of the sun.
2. An event done by God which nature could do, but not in this order such as
recovering from paralysis or a terminal illness. It's possible for these things to
happen but it is not usually expected, and so could be attributed to the direct
intervention of God.
3. An event done which nature could do but without using the principles or forces
of nature. For example, recovering from a cold more quickly than usual perhaps
because someone prayed for this, and then it might be called a miraculous
intervention of God.
• This allowed for a range of possible events, which we could call miracles.
C. S. Lewis
• Miracles are a type of revelation.
Swinburne
• “If he (God) has reason to interact with us, he has reason very occasionally to
intervene and suspend those natural laws by which our life is controlled”
We have historical evidence?
, • Swinburne acknowledges that it is difficult to outweigh the scientific evidence,
but that we do have enough historical evidence to suggest that there is a God
and that God can violate the laws of nature.
Laws of nature do not have to be rewritten when there are unrepeatable occurrences
• It is perfectly probable that there could be one off exceptional and unrepeatable
occurrences. The laws of nature do not have to be rewritten.
• If God is omnipotent, then he quite clearly could suspend the laws of nature
although not too often as this will interfere with scientific progress and free
will.
• He argues from first principles and argues that future predictions could always nullify
a law. When an event violates the Law of nature, the appearance may simply be
that no one has thought of the Law that could explain the event.
Why do we not rely on testimony when we do in normal life?
• We rely on the evidence of senses and perception to give us information about
the world, why do we not rely on the evidence and the testimony of those
claiming miracle.
God wouldn’t intervene often to preserve human freedom
• Swinburne also recognises the problem that God’s intervention would have on
human freedom which is why he argues that God doesn’t intervene too often.
Principle of Credulity and Testimony
• The Principle of Credulity: If it seems that X is present, then probably x is present.
In short what one seems to perceive is probably the case (It is a principle of
rationality). He puts the onus on the sceptic to disprove religious experience
otherwise it should be taken at face value.
• The Principle of Testimony: In the absent of special consideration, it is reasonable
to believe that the experiences of others are probably as they report them. In
other words, you should believe other people as well.
Definitions of a Miracle
Aquinas
• His definition of miracles is as ‘those things done by divine power apart from the
order usually followed in things’.
• This view suggests that God can do what he wants with his creation.
Has identified 3 types of miracles:
1. An event done by God which nature could not do – could be said to be the most
traditional approach. They are acts that contradict our regular experience. Aquinas
uses the example of the reversal of the course of the sun.
2. An event done by God which nature could do, but not in this order such as
recovering from paralysis or a terminal illness. It's possible for these things to
happen but it is not usually expected, and so could be attributed to the direct
intervention of God.
3. An event done which nature could do but without using the principles or forces
of nature. For example, recovering from a cold more quickly than usual perhaps
because someone prayed for this, and then it might be called a miraculous
intervention of God.
• This allowed for a range of possible events, which we could call miracles.
C. S. Lewis
• Miracles are a type of revelation.
Swinburne
• “If he (God) has reason to interact with us, he has reason very occasionally to
intervene and suspend those natural laws by which our life is controlled”
We have historical evidence?
, • Swinburne acknowledges that it is difficult to outweigh the scientific evidence,
but that we do have enough historical evidence to suggest that there is a God
and that God can violate the laws of nature.
Laws of nature do not have to be rewritten when there are unrepeatable occurrences
• It is perfectly probable that there could be one off exceptional and unrepeatable
occurrences. The laws of nature do not have to be rewritten.
• If God is omnipotent, then he quite clearly could suspend the laws of nature
although not too often as this will interfere with scientific progress and free
will.
• He argues from first principles and argues that future predictions could always nullify
a law. When an event violates the Law of nature, the appearance may simply be
that no one has thought of the Law that could explain the event.
Why do we not rely on testimony when we do in normal life?
• We rely on the evidence of senses and perception to give us information about
the world, why do we not rely on the evidence and the testimony of those
claiming miracle.
God wouldn’t intervene often to preserve human freedom
• Swinburne also recognises the problem that God’s intervention would have on
human freedom which is why he argues that God doesn’t intervene too often.
Principle of Credulity and Testimony
• The Principle of Credulity: If it seems that X is present, then probably x is present.
In short what one seems to perceive is probably the case (It is a principle of
rationality). He puts the onus on the sceptic to disprove religious experience
otherwise it should be taken at face value.
• The Principle of Testimony: In the absent of special consideration, it is reasonable
to believe that the experiences of others are probably as they report them. In
other words, you should believe other people as well.
