Miracles

Things done by God that break the known laws of nature.

The word ‘miracle’ derives from the Latin miraculum, meaning ‘something wonderful’. In the religious sense, a miracle is an act of divine intervention. Belief in miracles has been an important part of Christian theology since the earliest times. Jesus’ miracles were evidence of his divine status and the miracles of the apostles were evidence of their authority. The Roman Catholic Church still regards miracles as evidence of sainthood.

In the modern period, however, the question of whether miracles are possible has been bitterly disputed, with liberal theologians abandoning all sense of a supernatural religion. David Hume’s devastating attack on miracles in his essay ‘Of Miracles’ has attained an iconic status in modern philosophy. Hume’s critique became symbolic of the entire Enlightenment rejection of religion. By challenging the reality of miracles, Hume was aiming to challenge the credibility of any kind of supernatural activity or existence. Hume says that his argument against miracles will be ‘an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion’. The rejection of miracles implied the rejection of everything supernatural, all revelation and all prophecy. Hume said that without belief in miracles, it was unreasonable to have faith in the Christian religion.

The question of miracles was the subject of much debate in the early eighteenth century, and Hume’s essay emerged in the midst of these controversies. The debate began with the Deists, who believed that God had established the world as a well-ordered system with rational laws. It would be irrational for God to intervene to change his own divine plan: a miracle would be an admission by God that his general laws had been inadequate, and God cannot logically be inadequate. The Deists also argued that the word ‘miracle’ is merely a label used for any strange thing that has not yet been explained by science.

The Deist case is appealing, but it depends upon the presumption that the world really is a machine operating according to regular laws that we can fully understand. Miracles could simply be unusual instances of God’s activity which follow a rationality we cannot understand.

Hume’s argument against miracles was simple and effective, and ran like this: We only know about the miracles in Scripture from the testimony of others. But it is only reasonable to accept the testimony of others as true, when it fits with our own experience. Since we have no experience of walking on water, or resurrections, it is not reasonable to take the testimony of others on these matters as true.

Critics of Hume say that his argument depends upon the improbability of miracles. If miracles are improbable, then it is not reasonable to give credence to reports of miracles. However, the occasional occurrence of the improbable is probable. It may be improbable that I will win the national lottery three times in a row, but it is possible. Walking on water may be even more improbable, but it cannot be ruled out altogether. Hume’s argument shows that belief in miracles is unreasonable, but it does not show that miracles themselves are impossible.

Hume’s concluding point is that belief in miracles must be an act of faith rather than reason. This is surely correct. Even if we accept the testimony of someone who claims to have seen a vision of the Virgin Mary, it requires an act of faith to believe that this vision was given by God.

Very few people now truly believe in the power of miracles. Sick people take themselves to the doctor and only start praying in desperation for miracles when science has failed. Anyone who truly believed in God’s power to intervene would presumably start praying straight away and save their bus fare to the hospital.

THINKERS

Elizabeth Anscombe (1919–2001), in a public lecture, demolished C. S. Lewis’ argument that miracles prove the existence of God. Lewis was, allegedly, deeply humiliated by the experience.

St Augustine (354–430) argued in The City of God that miracles do not violate the laws of nature, but only our understanding of nature. God makes miracles possible within nature, but his purposes are too hidden for us to understand.

Samuel Clarke (1675–1729) argued against the Deists in A Discourse concerning the Unchangeable Obligations of Natural Religion and the Truth of Christian Revelation (1705), saying that a miracle is not a violation of natural laws, but simply an unusual instance of God’s rational activity.

William Lane Craig (1949– ) argues that miracles should not be ruled out as logically impossible, but should be judged on the empirical evidence in each individual case.

Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) rejected supernatural explanations in favour of a scientific understanding: ‘Thence it is that ignorant and superstitious men make great wonders of those works which other men, knowing to proceed from nature (which is not the immediate, but the ordinary work of God), admire not at all’ (Leviathan).

C. S. Lewis (1898–1963) argued in his book Miracles that it is rational to believe in God and supernatural phenomena.

Hermann Reimarus (1694–1758): a German Deist who argued that, since true religion is reached by the exercise of reason, belief in miracles cannot be part of a true religion. It would be irrational to suppose that God would transgress his own natural laws.

Baruch de Spinoza (1632–77) ruled out belief in miracles on principle, arguing that God would have no need to alter his plan for nature. Belief in miracles happens out of ignorance of the natural causes of things.

Francois Voltaire (1694–1778) argued, with the Deists, that it would be ‘the most absurd of all extravagances to imagine that the infinite Supreme Being would on behalf of three or four hundred emmets on this little atom of mud derange the operation of the vast machinery that moves the universe’ (‘Miracles’ in the Philosophical Dictionary).

Thomas Woolston (1669–1733) argued in his Discourses on the Miracles of our Saviour that the miracles of Jesus, including the resurrection, should be read as allegories.

IDEAS

Coincidence: this is different from a miracle, even if it is startling. A miracle must involve the direct action of God. So turning up late for a bus that crashes is fortunate, but not a miracle, unless God intervened in some supernatural way to stop you boarding the bus.

Littlewood’s Law: a ludicrous but entertaining theory formulated by John Littlewood (1885–1977) – that a miracle (defined as a one-in-a-million event) will happen to someone in the world at least once every month.

Providence: God’s ongoing activity in nature and history. So the provision of harvests each year is providential rather than miraculous.

BOOKS

Ian Ramsey (ed.), The Reasonableness of Christianity, and a Discourse of Miracles (Stanford University Press, 1958)