Miracles essay
Miracles Essay
Examine key concepts of miracles and philosophical reasons to believe in them.
Miracle is an event that goes against usual of nature or appearing to break the law of science. Hume defined miracles as a “violation of the laws of nature” and consequently rejected their occurrence as both improbable and impractical. Many philosophers back this view up to a certain extent, such as Wiles. However Aquinas rejects Hume’s arguments due to the lack of belief of people’s testimonies to be true.
Hume (1771-1776) was initially known as an intellectual for his literary works. He was an empiricist, which means that he believed that gaining knowledge from the world from observation and experience is more reliable. Hume’s first argument is the most important point in arguing reasons for believing in miracles. If you interpret the laws of nature to be strict and rigid, then it makes sense that if anything breaks these boundaries, then they should be classed as a miracle. Hume links the breaking of a law of nature to the 'Deity', so a miracle has religious meaning. For example it stated in the Bible in the case of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. But this was more of an eyewitness mistake, than an act that violated fixe laws of nature for Hume. Therefore a violation of the laws of nature was an improbable occurrence and is unbelievable.
Wiles agrees with Hume’s point that it is more likely the eyewitness was wrong than a miracle occurred. This would make God arbitrary as this would show clear favouritism by creating miracles while others were suffering. Wiles claims that miracles present an obstacle to religious faith: people are being asked to believe in omnibenevolent and omnipotent God who fed 5000 people but does nothing about world starvation today. A God who intervenes selectively would not be worthy of worship because of his failure to act on a wider scale.
However Aquinas disagrees with Hume. Around five hundred years earlier, Thomas Aquinas
Examine key concepts of miracles and philosophical reasons to believe in them.
Miracle is an event that goes against usual of nature or appearing to break the law of science. Hume defined miracles as a “violation of the laws of nature” and consequently rejected their occurrence as both improbable and impractical. Many philosophers back this view up to a certain extent, such as Wiles. However Aquinas rejects Hume’s arguments due to the lack of belief of people’s testimonies to be true.
Hume (1771-1776) was initially known as an intellectual for his literary works. He was an empiricist, which means that he believed that gaining knowledge from the world from observation and experience is more reliable. Hume’s first argument is the most important point in arguing reasons for believing in miracles. If you interpret the laws of nature to be strict and rigid, then it makes sense that if anything breaks these boundaries, then they should be classed as a miracle. Hume links the breaking of a law of nature to the 'Deity', so a miracle has religious meaning. For example it stated in the Bible in the case of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. But this was more of an eyewitness mistake, than an act that violated fixe laws of nature for Hume. Therefore a violation of the laws of nature was an improbable occurrence and is unbelievable.
Wiles agrees with Hume’s point that it is more likely the eyewitness was wrong than a miracle occurred. This would make God arbitrary as this would show clear favouritism by creating miracles while others were suffering. Wiles claims that miracles present an obstacle to religious faith: people are being asked to believe in omnibenevolent and omnipotent God who fed 5000 people but does nothing about world starvation today. A God who intervenes selectively would not be worthy of worship because of his failure to act on a wider scale.
However Aquinas disagrees with Hume. Around five hundred years earlier, Thomas Aquinas