Do Miracles Occur?
Introduction
A miracle is an event that cannot be explained by scientific or natural theories. Casually, the term miracle is frequently used to describe any favorable incident that is statistically improbable but not conflicting to the laws of nature, like surviving a natural disaster or an unusual incidence, irrespective of probability. This article evaluates the likelihood of the occurrence of miracles in real life and if they can be justified miraculous circumstances. The paper analyses this aspect of miracle through the use of arguments of significant thinkers like David Hume and J.L. Mackie in their philosophy of religion works. Hume gives insights into the reasons why miracles are improbable because they would be ‘violation of the law of nature.’ Miracles are impossible because everything in nature is possible, and therefore what some people call a miracle is just an extraordinary and shocking occurrence; it has nothing to do with a disruption of God’s will or nature’s divine law.
The Catholic View on Miracles
The discussion about the occurrence of miracles has attracted a myriad of debates concerning their probability and viability, ranging from the perspective of the Catholic Church, philosophy of religion, and other critics. According to Driscoll, the Catholic Church defines miracles are wonders performed by some supernatural powers as signs of unique gifts or missions that are entirely ascribed to God. Consequently, the Catholic Church believes miracles are works of God, either through prayers and intercessions of a specific saint or saints or directly. There are proofs of the term miracle, denoted by the Latin word miracula, in the Bible.
In the Gospels, there exists the term erga, which implies work, which describes the miracles of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the examination of these words offers scope and the nature of the miracles, according to the Catholic Church. Driscoll asserts that the miracles of Jesus are the mystical actions that are ascribed to Jesus in Christianity and Islam. The majority of the supernatural deeds attributed to Jesus Christ include the forgiveness of sins, control over nature, resurrection, exorcism, and faith healings. Further, Driscoll argues that most works of divine grace are above the power of nature, and they may be referred to as miraculous only in the vast implication of the word. Driscoll points out that miracles are beyond senses in ways like raising the dead to life or the gift of instilled knowledge with the Apostles.
A miracle is a wonderful event because its cause is unknown or just hidden, and may have an impact other than the event itself. Therefore, through comparing the occurrence to ordinary situations, a miracle is known as an extraordinary event. Subsequently, the theologians use the terms outside, contrary to, and above nature when evaluating the variance between the normal state of situations and the extraordinary nature of the miracles. Accordingly, a miracle is considered above nature when its impact is above the natural forces and powers of creations of which the recognized laws of nature are manifestation such as Jesus resurrecting the widow’s son (1Kings 17) and Lazarus (John 11).
On the other hand, miracles are said to be outside nature when natural forces have powers to generate the impact but cannot by themselves generate the effect in the way it was anticipated. Therefore, Driscoll notes that the impact in abundance far surpasses the forces of nature, or it occurs immediately without the process and means which nature utilizes. For instance, when Jesus multiplies the loaves (John 6) and changing of water into wine (John 2). Moreover, miracles are considered antagonistic to nature when the impact generated is contrary to the natural progress of situations. According to Kosloski, in his article “The Church is careful to declare only certain events as miraculous,” the Catholic Church believes in miracles since the entire life of Jesus was full of miracles from His conception to revivification and ascension.
David Hume’s Perspective on Miracles
David Hume, in his work An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (Section X: Of Miracles), explains the reasons why he refutes the claim of the existence of miracles. On the other hand, other thinkers like Locke, Mackie, Kant, Spinoza, Eichhorn, and Paulus Renan hold the same view. Several arguments underline the existence and possibility of miracles (Larmer 327). First, miracles should entail events that take place and violate the natural laws of nature. Second, the violated nature laws could only be through the powers of nature that are capable of violating such laws could only be the power that would have created such laws- the deity or the lawmaker. Third, there must be the existence of the power that created such laws- the divinity or the lawmaker. Therefore, these arguments form the foundation of the discussion on the presence or the possibility of miracles.
Additionally, several questions should be asked to determine the viability of the phenomenon. Firstly, is there any evidence or shreds of evidence that prove that there has ever been an occurrence that violates the laws of nature? Second, what are the requirement needed to ascertain the presence of such an event? Hume was cynical about the allegations of existence and possibilities of miracles. According to Hume (122), a miracle violates the laws of nature. As a stable and unchanged experience has recognized such laws, the evidence against miracles, from the very nature of facts, is as whole as any claim from understanding can probably be believed. Moreover, the experiences against such miraculous events must be uniform; otherwise, such incidents would not earn such appellation (Hume 122).
In his work, “An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding,” Section X: “Of Miracles,” Hume held that:
“…it forms a strong presumption against all supernatural and miraculous relations that they are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous nations; or if a civilized people has ever given admission to any of them, that people will be found to have received them from ignorant and barbarous ancestors, who transmitted them with that inviolable sanction and authority which always attend received opinions” (Hume, 126).
Therefore, no testimony would be sufficient to ascertain the occurrence of a miracle unless the proof is of such form that its misrepresentation would be more miraculous than the fact which it tries to establish (Hume 123). He maintains that the majority of the proof will often be that the natural laws are being appreciated and that any allegation that there has been an infringement of such laws need to be verified by substantial and clear proof. Additionally, Hume does not believe in the existence of such evidence. He underpins that the evidence should meet some criteria: (1) there should be enough witnesses, (2) the witnesses must be sensible and well educated, (3) the witnesses must possess good reputation and integrity, and (4) the miracle should be performed publicly. Therefore, Hume maintains that miracles do not occur and that there is a rational hindrance to humans ever substantiating that the supernatural events are indeed miracles.
However, Hume’s argument has greatly been criticized by other thinkers including, Holland, George Campbell, John Earman, J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, as well as others. For instance, Holland (43) argues that Hume’s miracle definition should be rejected because an event does not need to violate the law of nature to be considered a miracle. On the other hand, Campbell (31) asserts that Hume rests his description against belief in miracles upon the claim that ‘exceptionless’ testimonies prove natural laws. Still, a testimony can only be ‘exceptionless’ if the occurrence of the miracle id discounted. Also, Earman (28) claimed that Hume’s reason is mostly unoriginal and lacking merit because Hume did not comprehend the possibility of calculus as a primary source of inaccuracy.
Mackie’s Perspective
Mackie endorses Hume’s argument by stating that whereas a miracle may be possible, it seems impossible to prove that it occurred. According to Mackie (15), there are epistemological explanations why there could be no validation of claims that a miracle has occurred. Thus, there are no justifications to prove the existence of miracles. Mackie (15) suggests that for there to be an occurrence of a miracle, two conditions need to be met: (1) proof that the miracle has occurred, and (2) proof that the miraculous event has breached the laws of nature. Therefore, Mackie implies that there are many proofs against meeting the second condition that is if an event satisfies the first condition, there would be arguments that such events did not satisfy the second condition. Hence, it is close to impossible to satisfy the first condition.
The complexity of satisfying all the two conditions can be demonstrated by events that have been claimed to be miracles. First, if the first condition is satisfied, the occurrence does not satisfy the second condition. For instance, in the claims that a statue bleeds, or a painting cries, or someone is raised from the dead, or someone is from a particular disease (Mackie 22). Now, assuming that there was indeed blood on the statue, water on the painting, the dead person is alive, and the sick person is now not sick. In all these circumstances, the first condition is met since there are actual events. However, in all of these events, no law of nature was infringed since they all have alternative justifications that involve fraud, an inaccurate or premature pronouncement of death, natural remissions, and hoax.
Second, if the second condition is satisfied, then the first condition would not be satisfied. Mackie (24) states that someone may describe an event that would breach the nature laws and allege that it occurred. Subsequently, people may consider the event and approve that if it occurred, then it would be an occurrence that violates the laws of nature. As a result, they counter-check whether the event truly occurred, but the proof they are looking for is missing. Therefore, the second condition was fulfilled in the explanation, but the first condition was not fulfilled with proof.
Mackie gives an example in this case: A person reports that someone’s arm got sliced off totally at the shoulder. It fell on the floor and stayed there with blood soaking it while the person had blood gushing out of the arm’s plug, and then 30 seconds later, a new arm develops from the shoulder plug with all the components of the arm. In 60 seconds, a new arm completely grows as the old one continues to stay on the floor. Subsequently, the results of the DNA test match that of the person allegedly cut. This occurrence violates the laws of nature and would be considered a miraculous event. Nevertheless, the question would be, did the event occur?
Accordingly, the people who overheard the report return to look for proof, but they do not find the old arm. Or the people who witnessed the occurrence are unable to generate the old arm. Furthermore, there is no videotape of the occurrence. So, the second condition is met but not the first condition. Thus, if the witnessed could produce the severed arm along with the person allegedly cut, and the DNA of the two tests matched each other, then the investigators would resort to determine if there was no identical twin to the person whose arm was severed.
Conclusion
The significant difficulties in modern theology are the place of miracles in society. The probability of the occurrence of miracles is impossible in real life, and they cannot be easily justified. The use of arguments of significant thinkers like David Hume, Holland, George Campbell, John Earman, J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, J.L. Mackie, and others in their philosophy of religion works give us significant insights into the subject of the possibility of miracles. Hume and Mackie give insights into the reasons why miracles are improbable. Other thinkers have explained the miracles of Christ on natural foundations. The basic principle is that everything that happens is natural, and whatever is not natural does not occur. Therefore what some people call a miracle is just an extraordinary and shocking occurrence; it has nothing to do with a disruption of God’s will or nature’s divine law.
Works Cited
Campbell, George. A Dissertation on Miracles, pp. 31–32, London: T. Tegg, 1824 [1]
Driscoll, John T. “Miracle.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 3 May 2020 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm>.
Earman, John. Hume’s Abject Failure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, 23-46. ISBN 0-19-512737-4.
Holland, R.F. “The Miraculous.” In American Philosophical Quarterly 2, 1965: pp. 43–51 (reprinted in Swinburne).
Hume, D. An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Bobbs-Merrill, Library of Liberal Arts edition, 1748, pp. 120-127.
Kosloski, Philip. The Church is Careful to Declare only Certain Events as Miraculous: Aleteia. May 14, 2018. Available at: https://aleteia.org/2018/05/14/this-is-how-miracles-are-approved-by-the-church/.
Larmer, R.A. “Interpreting Hume on Miracles.” Religious Studies, vol. 45, no. 3, 2009, pp. 325–338. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27750021. Accessed 30 Apr. 2020.
Mackie, J.L. The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the Existence of God. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982, pp. 11-16.