15 Mark Miracles

Examine the views of Hume and Wiles on miracles.
(10 mark)
Plan
Hume:
- Defined miracles as ‘transgressions of the laws of nature by a particular volition
of the deity’
- Religionists tend to be more receptive to belief in miracles, so therefore have a
tendency to see or believe what is not reality.
- The evidence that miracles do not exist outweigh the evidence that they do.
- Miracles must be witnessed by a sufficient number of men with ‘unquestioned
good sense’ in order to be accepted as having happened.
Wiles:
- The only miracle was creation, all other miracles are damaging to faith
- Miracles go against God being omnibenevolent because he presents an image of
God as picking and choosing when to perform miracles, when he has the power
to always do so. This links to the problem of evil for this reason.
- He believed that miracles within the Bible are merely symbolic
- Miracles suggests that God exists but is immoral/ not omnibenevolent.
Humes described miracles as ‘trasgressions of the laws of nature by a particular volition of the diety’,
essencially a miracle is when the law of nature is broken. He argued that although there is a possible
chance that miracles could exist, he argues that it is impossible to prove, claiming that the ‘falsehood
would be more miraclulous’. Therefore he proposed that miracles must be witnessed by a sufficient
number of men with ‘unquestioned good sense’ in order to accept there claim of miracle. Moreover,
he suggested that religionists tend to be more receptive to belief in miracles, as a result, they have
the tendency to see or believe what is not reality. He argues that the evidence that miracles do not
exist outweighs the evidence that they do, further backing his point that it is hard to provide good
evidence for the accurance of miracles.
Wiles proposed another view on miracles, arguing that the only miracles was the creation of the
world by God, and therefore, any other miracles is suggested to be damaging to faith. This is because
it goes againts God being omnibenevolent because he presents an immage of God picking and
choocing when to perform miracles, when he has the powevr to do so. This correlates with the
problem of evil and goes against Christians teaching of the God of classical theism. So, it is better to
believe in a god who does not perfprm miracles, tha believe that he is immoral as it could ruin
someone’s believe and trust in God. He believed that the miracles within the Bible are merely
symoblic, consequently taking a realist view on miracles. Which is that mirackes are not literally
created by God and, like Whiles states, it is symbolic. They are suggested to create a sense of religion
as it reveals something about God to the believer.
‘Understandings of miracles present a weak criticism towards/of religion’

Evaluate this claim. (15 marks)
Do different interpretations of miracles present a weak criticism of religious views of

miracles?
Plan
Line of argument = criticisms of miracles are weak in the face of religious
understandings and examples of miracles.
Point 1: there is evidence that life after death does happen.

E.g. There are cases where people have been dead for a few minutes, then coming back
to life or having seen the afterlife.
Counter-argument: they could be lying
Point 2: testimonies
E.g. Walking on water (was witnessed by the disciples), the plagues of egypt (witnessed
by the whole of Egypt)
Counter-argument: could have been a coincidence, could’ve walked on shallow water to
make himself seem more powerful.
Point 3: God is more powerful than science/ physics

EX: Aquinas claimed ‘those things must properly be called miraculous, which are done
by divine power apart from the order generally followed in things’. Essentially, miracles
are literally caused by God breaking laws of nature. He gave 3 types of miracles, one of
which he described as an event which could happen naturally but God breaks the rules
of nature.
E.G: being terminally ill and presumed to die soon, praying for healing and then God
healing you.
EX: This demonstrates that a religious understanding of a miracle is stronger since
science would not be able to explain this, as doctors would have researched at length
before telling a patient their illness was terminal. Thus, the only explanation must be
God.
C-A: However, Hume would argue that there’s never been a miracle witnessed by
enough ‘men of unquestioned good sense’. Since doctors could not explain this, Hume
would argue that it isn’t a miracle caused by God but rather luck.
L: Despite this, it does break the laws of nature and therefore fits in with Aquinas’ view
on miracles and hence presents a stronger argument.
Anthony Flew argues that miracles cannot be proved since we do not have direct
experience

15 Mark Miracles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

15 Mark Miracles

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

15 Mark Miracles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Examine the views of Hume and Wiles on miracles.

‘Understandings of miracles present a weak criticism towards/of religion’

Do different interpretations of miracles present a weak criticism of religious views of

Point 1: there is evidence that life after death does happen.

Point 3: God is more powerful than science/ physics

You might also like