Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
COMPARISON OF KEY IDEAS OF HUME & WILES ON MIRACLES - Coggle Diagram
COMPARISON OF KEY IDEAS OF HUME & WILES ON MIRACLES
HUME'S VIEWS ON MIRACLES
Humes thoughts have their basis in empiricism: human knowledge is derived from sense experience
we cannot know if an event was due to a deity because any deity is 'hidden' and unobservable
Hume accepted the possibility of new and extraordinary events, but they are not miraculous
Hume followed the inductive approach:
Whereas effects can be verified, causes cannot
everything therefore is about probability, not certainty
His argument is based on the consistency of human experience:
although unusual, its not a miracle if a healthy man dies suddenly
if the dead man actually came back to life, that would be a miracle as it runs counter to universal human experience
He adopts a REALIST standpoint: he assumes religious believers claims are regarded as factual and literally true
there are 3 aspects to Humes defenition of the term 'miracle'
it violates the law of nature
it is willed by god
it may be performed by some spiritual agent
HUME'S ARGUMENTS AGAINST MIRACLES
Humes main argument arises out of his definition if miracle and is rooted in empiricism
the validity of witness evidence about anything is dependent on evidence
the more unlikely the claim, the more reliable the evidence needs to be
an event that violates the laws of nature is maximally improbable
therefore he likeleyhood that he witness is lying or mistakes is greater than the kiklehood that the miracle has happened
Hume then gives 4 supporting arguments:
there has never been one single miracle supported by witnesses possessing the attributes required for their claims to be taken seriously
people (even normally sensible ones) are taken in by claims of miracles because humans are credulous by nature
miracle stories are the products of primitive superstitions
they come from 'ignorant and barbarous people'
the different religions all lay claim to miracles
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HUME'S VIEWS I RELATION TO RELIGIOUS BELIEF
Its an inductive argument, so neither definitively prove nor disprove the existence of miracles
its possible to construct a theistic argument along the lines of Humes and conclude logically that miracles probably do happen
Humes 4 arguments supporting his main argument aren't strong and can be challenged with supporting evidence
Humes concluding statement that Christianity is founded on faith and not reason makes an important point
the pre-scientific nature of biblical, as well as if early and medieval writing needs to be taken into account
WILES' VIEW ON MIRACLES
Takes an anti-realist approach to miracles: theyre to be interpreted as symbols
the only miracle was that of the creation
Gods creation was so good that there was no need for further intervention
god put laws of nature in place which meant miraculous events would have to be rare as otherwise humans couldn't rely on those laws
The interventionist understanding to miracles is unacceptable:
it implies a selective God who chooses to help some and not others
this issue intensifies by the fact so many reported miracles seem trivial (water into wine at canal, but no deliverance from gas chambers in auschwitz)
that would not be a gd worthy of worship
it makes problem of evil unsolvable
Its impossible to know what actually happened in relation to the miracles recorded of Jesus
the strength of the tradition suggests he was a powerful exorcist and healer
his refusal to perform signs ti prove his messianic status suggests whatever he did was in the nature of a sign coming from Gods kindgom
the biblical accounts are to be taken as myths to point to the nature of God and the importance of obedience
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WILES' VIEWTO RELIGIOUS BELIEF
-
Wiles' views make the challenges if Hume irrelevant
Wiles' claim that the act of creation was the sole miracle leads to claims he was a deist rather than a theist
against this, wiles claimed that god was at work in the world, actively sustaining it (not though miraculous intervention)
in his writings, wiles gives more of a holistic view of Gods activity as opposed to the view that limits him to occasional intervention
this is closer to the view of Aquinas, who saw miracles as a art of gods continual work in nature, sustaining the world