Welcome to Philosophy of Religion: The Problem of Miracle
Welcome to your study notes for Unit AS 8: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. The topic of miracles is one of the most exciting and hotly debated areas in the philosophy of religion. In everyday life, people use the word "miracle" casually (like "It’s a miracle I passed that test!"), but in philosophy, the term has a very precise meaning that raises serious questions about science, history, and God.
Don't worry if this topic feels a bit challenging at first. We will break down each thinker, definition, and argument step by step so you feel fully confident tackling both AO1 (Knowledge and Understanding) and AO2 (Critical Analysis and Evaluation) exam questions.
1. Defining a Miracle: The Problem of Definition
Before philosophers can debate whether miracles happen, they have to agree on what a miracle actually is. This is known as the problem of definition.
Realist vs. Anti-Realist Views
Philosophers generally divide definitions of miracles into two main camps:
• Realist (Objective View): A realist believes that a miracle is a real, historical, mind-independent event. It actually happened in the physical world through an external cause (God), regardless of whether anyone witnessed or understood it.
• Anti-Realist (Subjective View): An anti-realist believes that a miracle is not about breaking the laws of physics. Instead, it is an event that holds deep personal or religious meaning for the person experiencing it. The miracle is "in the eye of the beholder."
Classical & Modern Definitions
1. St Thomas Aquinas (13th Century - Classical Realist)
Aquinas argued that a miracle is an event caused directly by God's divine power outside the normal pattern of nature. He categorized miracles into three levels:
• Events done by God which nature could never do (e.g. the sun standing still or reversing its course).
• Events that nature can do, but not in that order or speed (e.g. someone recovering instantly from a terminal illness, or someone walking immediately after paralysis).
• Events that nature usually does, but done without the usual natural processes (e.g. sudden rainfall ending a drought immediately after prayer).
2. David Hume (18th Century - The Classic Skeptical Definition)
Hume defined 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."
In simple terms: A miracle is a deliberate breaking or violation of natural laws by God or a spiritual power.
3. R.F. Holland (20th Century - The "Contingency Miracle")
Holland proposed that an event does not need to break any scientific laws to be called a miracle. He introduced the idea of a contingency miracle: an extraordinary coincidence that is interpreted with deep religious significance.
Holland’s Example: A young boy gets his toy car stuck in the tracks at a railway crossing. An oncoming train is approaching fast. Just in time, the train screeches to a halt inches from the child because the train driver fainted and released the safety lever (the "dead man's handle"). No natural laws were broken, but the boy's mother interprets this fortunate coincidence as a miracle of God's providence.
Key Takeaway: Realists (like Aquinas and Hume) see miracles as objective events that go beyond or break natural laws. Anti-realists and contingency theorists (like Holland) see miracles as meaningful events or coincidences interpreted through the eyes of faith.
2. The Philosophical Challenges to Miracles
The CCEA AS 8 specification focuses on two major philosophical critiques: the historical/empirical critique of David Hume and the moral/theological critique of Maurice Wiles.
A. David Hume’s Challenge: The Skeptical Argument
David Hume was an empiricist (someone who believes that all knowledge comes from sense experience). Hume did not say miracles are logically impossible; rather, he argued that it is never rational to believe the testimony that a miracle has occurred.
The Argument from Probability
1. Our understanding of the laws of nature is based on uniform, repeated human experience across centuries (e.g. billions of observations confirm that dead people stay dead and heavy objects fall to the ground).
2. A miracle claim is supported only by the testimony of a few individuals.
3. A wise person always proportions their belief to the evidence.
4. Therefore, the uniform evidence supporting a law of nature will always outweigh the rare testimony claiming that the law was broken.
Hume’s Four Practical Arguments
To back up his philosophical point, Hume offered four practical reasons why human testimony about miracles is untrustworthy. You can remember these using the mnemonic W-I-S-C (Witnesses, Ignorant origins, Sensationalism, Conflicting claims):
• 1. Insufficient Number of Educated Witnesses: History never provides a miracle witnessed by a sufficient number of educated, trustworthy people of good sense who have everything to lose by lying.
• 2. The Love of Wonder and Sensationalism: Humans naturally love gossip, surprise, and the dramatic. The passion of surprise and wonder leads people to readily believe and spread unbelievable stories.
• 3. Origins in "Ignorant and Barbarous" Nations: Hume argued that miracle stories predominantly originate among uncivilized or uneducated populations and fade away as societies become scientifically advanced.
• 4. Conflicting Claims of Different Religions: Different religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.) all claim miracles to validate their exclusive truth claims. Because these religious systems contradict one another, their miracle claims logically cancel each other out.
B. Maurice Wiles’ Challenge: The Theological and Moral Problem
Important Exam Alert: Do not make the common mistake of calling Maurice Wiles an atheist! Wiles was an Anglican theologian. He did not reject God; he rejected the idea of an interventionist God.
The "Arbitrary and Partisan God"
Wiles argued that if God performs miracles by directly intervening in the world, that God becomes morally indefensible:
• Arbitrary (Random) & Partisan (Unfair): Why would God perform relatively minor, individual miracles (such as healing a single pilgrim at Lourdes) while completely ignoring massive human catastrophes like the Holocaust, the bombing of Hiroshima, or widespread famines?
• If God has the power to stop suffering through miracles but only chooses to help a select few, God appears capricious, biased, and immoral.
Wiles’ Solution: A Single Divine Act
Instead of seeing God as an occasional meddler who steps in to fix things, Wiles proposed an anti-realist / symbolic view:
• Creation is God's single, continuous act.
• God created the universe with its natural laws and does not constantly violate them.
• Miracle stories in scripture should be understood symbolically, directing our attention to God's love and sovereignty, rather than as literal historical disruptions of physics.
Key Takeaway: Hume attacks miracles from the outside using empiricism and history (testimony is never strong enough to beat natural law). Wiles attacks interventionist miracles from the inside using Christian theology and morality (an interventionist God would be unfair and cruel).
3. Defending Miracles: Theistic Responses
Theists have developed strong arguments to respond to Hume and Wiles, demonstrating that belief in miracles is both rational and coherent.
A. Richard Swinburne: Testimony and Credulity
Philosopher Richard Swinburne argues that Hume is overly skeptical and sets an impossibly high standard for miracle evidence. Swinburne offers two famous principles:
• 1. The Principle of Credulity: We ought to believe that things are as they seem to be, unless we have positive, reliable reasons to doubt them (e.g. that the person was hallucinating, drunk, or looking through a distorting lens). If someone experiences a miraculous healing, we should accept that experience at face value unless proven otherwise.
• 2. The Principle of Testimony: In the absence of special reasons to doubt (such as a known track record of lying), we should believe what other people report to us. Society relies on testimony for almost all scientific, historical, and legal knowledge; it is unfair to reject testimony purely because it describes a religious event.
Swinburne also argues that laws of nature are not rigid "rules" that cannot bend; they are descriptions of how things normally behave. If an omnipotent God exists, it is entirely reasonable that God might occasionally choose to suspend or modify those regularities for a loving purpose.
B. John Polkinghorne: Theological Realism
Physicist and theologian John Polkinghorne defends miracles from a scientific perspective:
• Miracles are not crude "violations" of nature that make God look like an inconsistent magician.
• Instead, miracles represent God acting in a new way under new circumstances.
• Just as the laws of physics reveal different behaviors under extreme conditions (like deep inside a black hole or at quantum scales), God interacts with creation in a uniquely deep way during special moments of divine disclosure (such as the Resurrection of Jesus). This is known as theological realism.
C. Grounding the Debate: The Evidence of Lourdes
When writing CCEA essays, examiners love specific, concrete evidence rather than vague claims. The sanctuary of Lourdes in France provides a prime case study:
• The Lourdes Medical Bureau operates with strict scientific rigor. Any claimed cure is scrutinized by independent doctors, believers, and non-believers alike over several years.
• Out of thousands of claims, only 70 cures have been officially recognized as medically and scientifically inexplicable miracles by the Catholic Church.
• Theists use these 70 verified cases to counter Hume’s claim that miracles lack reliable, educated investigation.
Key Takeaway: Swinburne defends the reliability of everyday human experience and testimony, while Polkinghorne shows that science and divine action can coexist coherently.
4. Critical Evaluation (AO2) Summary
To score top marks in Section A and Section B of your AS 8 exam, you must balance your explanations (AO1) with sharp evaluation (AO2).
Evaluating David Hume
• Strengths: Hume provides a cautious, rational safeguard against superstition and fraud. It makes logical sense to require overwhelming evidence for extraordinary claims.
• Weaknesses:
1. Hume’s argument is circular: he assumes nature is uniform and that miracles do not happen to prove that miracles cannot be believed.
2. His claim about "ignorant and barbarous nations" is culturally elitist and historically inaccurate; many educated modern individuals (including doctors and scientists) report and investigate miraculous events.
3. Conflicting claims do not necessarily cancel each other out; different miracles could simply show God revealing divine power to different cultures in various ways.
Evaluating Maurice Wiles
• Strengths: Wiles solves the problem of evil and spares God from accusations of playing favorites (partisanship). He preserves scientific integrity by removing the need for physical interventions.
• Weaknesses:
1. Wiles’ God is too distant and detached (resembling Deism rather than traditional Christian theism).
2. His view undermines traditional biblical faith, which relies heavily on real historical events like the Exodus, the Virgin Birth, and the physical Resurrection of Jesus.
3. It limits God's omnipotence by claiming God cannot or will not act directly in the world God created.
5. Common Pitfalls & Exam Checklist
Avoid these frequent mistakes identified by CCEA examiners:
• Mistake 1: Confusing AS 8 with A2 8. Keep your focus strictly on definitions, Hume's challenge, Wiles' critique, and theistic defenses (Swinburne/Polkinghorne). Do not drift into broader A2 science-and-religion dialogue themes.
• Mistake 2: Thinking Maurice Wiles is an atheist. Always identify Wiles as an Anglican theologian addressing the moral character of God.
• Mistake 3: Giving one-sided answers. Never just list Hume’s points. Always evaluate them (e.g. contrast Hume's dismissal of testimony with Swinburne’s Principle of Testimony).
• Mistake 4: Vague examples. Always refer to specific examples, such as the 70 verified miracles at Lourdes, R.F. Holland's train example, or New Testament healing accounts.
Quick Review Questions
Test yourself before moving on:
1. What is the difference between Aquinas' definition of a miracle and Hume's definition?
2. What are the four practical arguments Hume uses against miracle testimony?
3. Why does Maurice Wiles argue that an interventionist God is "arbitrary and partisan"?
4. How do Swinburne's Principles of Credulity and Testimony defend miracle claims?