Welcome to "The Problem of Miracle"
Welcome to your study notes for Unit AS 8: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion! Miracles are one of the most exciting and debated topics in philosophy. At first glance, a miracle sounds wonderful—a dramatic act of divine power. But for philosophers, miracles raise serious questions:
If the universe is governed by fixed scientific laws, can God really break them? And if people claim to have seen a miracle, should we actually believe them?
Don't worry if this topic feels challenging at first. We will break down every definition, philosopher, and argument step by step so you can write top-mark AO1 (knowledge) and AO2 (evaluation) exam answers.
Examiner Warning: Do not confuse a miracle with a generic religious experience. While a religious experience is typically an internal, subjective feeling, a miracle in this unit specifically refers to an objective physical event that challenges the laws of nature or carries profound religious significance.
---1. Defining a Miracle
To understand the problem, we must first understand what philosophers and theologians mean when they use the word miracle. There are three main definitions you need to know for your exam:
A. David Hume’s Classical Definition
In his famous work Enquiries concerning Human Understanding, 18th-century Scottish philosopher David 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."
Let's unpack that definition:
- Transgression of a law of nature: A breaking or suspension of a natural, scientific law (e.g., walking on water or rising from the dead).
- Volition of the Deity / invisible agent: It is not an accidental freak of nature; it is caused deliberately by God's will (volition) or a supernatural power.
B. Theological Conceptions (Biblical Terms)
In Christian theology, miracles are not just viewed as scientific rule-breaking; they are seen as demonstrations of God's presence, purpose, and kingdom. The New Testament uses three key Greek terms:
- Semeion (Sign): A miracle that points toward God's authority, message, or character (like a road sign pointing to a destination).
- Teras (Wonder): An extraordinary event that causes awe, amazement, and astonishment in those who witness it.
- Dunamis (Power): An act that reveals the divine power and energy of God at work in the world.
C. R.F. Holland’s "Coincidence" View
Philosopher R.F. Holland suggested that an event does not need to break any laws of nature to be considered a miracle. Instead, a miracle can be a remarkable coincidence interpreted religiously.
Holland's Example (The Train-Driver):
Imagine a young child riding a toy car who gets stuck on an active railway track. An oncoming train is speeding toward the child and cannot stop in time. However, just before the train hits the child, the driver faints, releasing the "dead man's handle," which automatically activates the brakes and stops the train inches from the child.
No laws of physics were broken—the driver fainted due to natural biological reasons, and the brakes worked mechanically. However, the child's mother interprets this extraordinary timing as an answer to prayer and a divine intervention. Holland argues that such an event can genuinely be called a miracle by the person who experiences it.
Key Takeaway for Section 1:
Hume sees miracles as an objective violation of natural laws by God, Biblical theology sees them as signs and powers (semeion, teras, dunamis), and Holland sees them as meaningful coincidences that break no natural laws at all.
2. The Challenge of David Hume (Empiricism)
David Hume was an empiricist (someone who believes that all knowledge comes from sensory experience and observation). He argued that it is never rational or reasonable to believe testimony that a miracle has occurred.
A. The Probability Argument
Hume's core philosophical objection is based on the balance of evidence and probability:
- Uniform Experience: The "laws of nature" are established by billions of repeated observations over thousands of years (e.g., humans do not walk on water; dead bodies stay dead). This represents the highest possible standard of uniform evidence.
- Singular Testimony: A miracle report is based on the second-hand testimony of a few individuals claiming that a law of nature was broken on a single occasion.
- The Logical Conclusion: When weighing the overwhelming evidence for a law of nature against the limited evidence of human testimony, the evidence against the miracle will always outweigh the evidence for it. Hume argued that a wise person always proportions their belief to the strongest evidence.
B. Hume’s Four Practical Arguments Against Testimony
Beyond his logical probability argument, Hume gave four practical, real-world reasons why human testimony about miracles cannot be trusted:
Memory Trick: Remember the word W-I-S-C to recall Hume's four points:
- W - Wonder and Surprise: Human psychology loves gossip, excitement, and the sensational. The natural human passion for "wonder and surprise" makes people eagerly believe and spread fantastic stories without checking the facts.
- I - Ignorant and Barbarous Nations: Hume claimed that miracle stories historically originate among uneducated, primitive societies. As nations develop scientific knowledge and critical thinking, reports of miracles fade away.
- S - Scarcity of Credible Witnesses: History provides no miracle that was attested to by a sufficient number of educated, reputable, and trustworthy men who would have everything to lose by lying.
- C - Contrary Miracles (Conflicting Claims): Different world religions (e.g., Christianity, Islam, Hinduism) claim miracles to prove that their specific faith is the only true one. Because these religious systems contradict one another, their miracles are in direct competition. Hume argues that the miracle claims of opposing religions effectively cancel each other out!
Examiner Tip: When answering exam questions on Hume, do not waste time writing a biography of his life. Focus entirely on his philosophical logic: the balance of probabilities and his four criticisms of witness reliability.
Key Takeaway for Section 2:
Hume argues that uniform human experience makes a natural law almost certain. Because human witnesses are flawed, biased, and contradict one another, testimony can never provide enough evidence to overturn a law of nature.
3. Modern Philosophical Responses
Contemporary philosophers have responded to the problem of miracles from both defensive and critical angles. The two major thinkers on your specification are Richard Swinburne and Maurice Wiles.
A. Richard Swinburne: Defending Miracles
Modern philosopher Richard Swinburne defends the rationality of miracles by challenging Hume's strict scientific and evidential assumptions:
- Laws of Nature are "Statistical" and "Corrigible": Swinburne argues that Hume treats scientific laws as unchangeable rules. In reality, scientific laws are generalized descriptions of what usually happens—they are statistical and corrigible (meaning they can be revised or modified if new evidence appears). An occasional divine intervention does not destroy science; it is simply a rare non-repeatable exception caused by God.
- The Principle of Credulity: Swinburne argues that we ought to believe that things are as they seem, unless we have positive reasons to doubt them (e.g., if the person was hallucinating or on drugs). If someone genuinely experiences a miraculous event, it is rational for them to believe it happened.
- The Principle of Testimony: In everyday life, we rely on what other people tell us (e.g., historical events, scientific discoveries). Swinburne argues we should apply the same rule to miracles: we should believe human testimony unless we have specific reasons to suspect the witness is lying or mistaken.
B. Maurice Wiles: The Moral Critique of Miracles
Theologian Maurice Wiles rejected the traditional view of miracles not on scientific grounds, but on moral grounds. Wiles asked: What kind of God would perform traditional miracles?
- Arbitrary and Unfair: If God intervenes to perform minor or "trivial" miracles (such as turning water into wine at a wedding or healing an individual's illness), why did God not intervene to stop immense evil and suffering, such as the Holocaust or devastating natural disasters?
- Not Worthy of Worship: A God who selectively helps a few favored people while ignoring millions of innocent sufferers is partisan, arbitrary, and morally cruel. Such a God would not be worthy of human worship.
- Wiles' Alternative: Wiles argued that God's single, supreme miracle was the act of Creation itself. God does not constantly step in and tinker with the world; instead, God sustains the entire universe as an unbroken whole.
Key Takeaway for Section 3:
Swinburne defends miracles by arguing that natural laws are flexible descriptions and that human testimony should be trusted by default. Wiles rejects divine intervention, arguing that a God who performs selective, trivial miracles while allowing horrors like the Holocaust is morally indefensible.
4. Examination Strategy & Common Pitfalls
In your CCEA AS 8 examination, questions on this topic test two specific Assessment Objectives:
- AO1 (Knowledge and Understanding): Accurately define terms (e.g., Hume's definition, Holland's train example, semeion/teras/dunamis) and explain the arguments step by step without bias.
- AO2 (Analysis and Evaluation): Weigh the strengths and weaknesses of each argument. For example: Is Hume guilty of having a "closed mind" by defining natural laws so strictly that no miracle could ever be accepted? Or is Swinburne overly trusting of unreliable human testimony?
Common Exam Pitfalls to Avoid:
- Ignoring the "Problem": Do not just tell exciting stories about biblical miracles. The specification is about the problem of miracle—the conflict between divine action, science, human reliability, and moral fairness.
- Pre-prepared Section B Essays: In Section B (the synoptic question linking to human experience), students often write generic, pre-rehearsed essays. Make sure every point you make directly relates to the specific question asked about miracles and philosophy of religion.
- Confusing Thinkers: Make sure you keep Hume (18th century empiricist challenge), Holland (coincidence view), Swinburne (principles of credulity/testimony), and Wiles (moral critique) clearly distinct in your revision notes.
Quick Revision Checklist
Before entering the exam room, ensure you can comfortably answer the following:
- Can I state Hume’s exact definition of a miracle from memory?
- Can I explain Holland’s train-driver example and why it does not violate natural laws?
- Can I list and explain all 4 of Hume's practical arguments against witness testimony (W-I-S-C)?
- Can I explain Swinburne's Principle of Credulity and Principle of Testimony?
- Can I explain why Maurice Wiles uses the example of the Holocaust to challenge traditional miracles?