No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
One word that often creeps into the active vocabulary of religious people is ‘miracle’. Many would say that miracles occur, or that they have occurred. It is also sometimes suggested that they provide evidence for various things, notably the existence of God, or the truth of some particular religion, or die teaching of certain religious leaders. The topic of miracle has occasioned much philosophical and theological debate. But what should we say about it?
Perhaps the obvious question to turn to at the outset is that of the nature of miracles. What are we discussing when we talk about miracles? The answer is not all that obvious, for those who refer to miracles have offered various understandings of what it is that they are talking about
1 Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, ed. Selby‐Bigge, L.A., 3rd edn., Oxford, 1975. p.115Google Scholar.
2 ‘Miracles’, The Philosophic of Quarterly 18 (1968)Google Scholar, reprinted in Rowe, William L. and Wainwright, William J. (ed.), Philosophy of Religion: Selected readings (2nd edn. London and New York. 1973)Google Scholar.
3 The Miracle of Theism (Oxford, 1982). pp. 19Google Scholar f.
4 Summa Contra Gentiles III, 101, 2–4.
5 Cf. Isaiah 38:7 f. and Joshua 10:12–14.
6 Summa Contra Gentiles III, 101, 3.
7 ‘The Miraculous’, in Phillips, D.Z. (ed.), Religion and Understanding (Oxford, 1967)Google Scholar, reprinted in Swinbume, Richard (ed.), Miracles (London and New York. 1989)Google Scholar.
8 Richard Swinbume (ed.), Miracles, p. 53 ff.
9 Holland is evidently thinking of the mother in the story as viewing the deliverance of her child as something in line with the Christian belief that God can deliver people in difficulty. So my comments might not apply to his notion of miracle as coincidence.
10 See Burns, R.M., The Great Debate on Miracles: From Joseph Glanville to David Hume (London and Toronto, 1981), pp. 70 ffGoogle Scholar.
11 'Is Theism Really a Miracle?', Faith and Philosophy 3 (1986). p. 111.Google Scholar
12 One might prefer to speak in this connection of ‘exceptions’ rather than violations, for to call miracles violations of natural law might be taken to imply that when a miracle occurs some natural law ceases to operate throughout the world. Cf. Richard L. Purtill, ‘Miracles: What if they Happened?’ in Richard Swinburne (ed.), Miracles, pp. 194 f.
13 A Modern Philosophy of Religion (Chicago, 1955). pp. 454 fGoogle Scholar.
14 Interpreting the Miracles (London, 1966), pp. 8Google Scholar f.
15 Richard Swinburne (ed.), Miracles, p. 84.
16 John 9:32 f.
17 In The Quest for Eternity (Harmondsworth. 1984. p. 137). J.C.A. Gaskin offers a nice definition of ‘miracle’ which seems to take account of much of the diversity to which I have referred: 'Miracle: an event of religious significance, brought about by God or a god or by some other visible or invisible rational agent with sufficient power. either in violation of the laws of nature (the “violation concept”) or as a striking coincidence within the laws of nature (the “coincidence concept”)'.
18 Notice, however, that all the points about miracles argued by Hume can be found in the work of writers working before the publication of ‘Of Miracles’. This fact is ably demonstrated by R.M. Burns, op. cit.
19 Enquiry, p. 125.
20 Enquiry, p. 128.
21 Enquiry, p. 127.
22 Enquiry, pp. 114 f.
23 Enquiry, pp. 115 f.
24 The Miracle of Theism, pp. 25 ff.
25 Enquiry, p. 115.
26 For an earlier statement of this argument, see Sherlock, Thomas, The Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection (1st edn., 1729, 8th edn., London, 1736), p. 58Google Scholar.
27 The Great Debate on Miracles, p. 143.
28 Enquiry, p. 115.
29 Hume's Philosophy of Religion (2nd edn., London, 1988). pp. 163Google Scholar ff.
30 ‘Hume's Theory of the Credibility of Miracles’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 17 (1916‐17), pp. 77–94Google Scholar.
31 Enquiry, p. 116.
32 Enquiry, pp. 116 f.
33 Enquiry, p. 117.
34 Enquiry, pp. 117 f.
35 Enquiry, p. 118.
36 Enquiry, p. 118.
37 Enquiry, p. 119.
38 Enquiry, pp. 121 f.
39 Cf. Richard Swinburne (ed.), Miracles, pp. 134 ff.
40 The Concept of Miracle (London, 1970), p. 60Google Scholar.
41 J.C.A. Gaskin, Hume's Philosophy of Religion, p. 142.
42 The Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection pp. 58 ff.
43 ‘Is Theism Really a Miracle?’, Faith and Philosophy 3 (1966). pp. 112 fGoogle Scholar.
44 The Concept of Miracle, p. 57.
45 Summa Theologiae, 1a 110, 4.
46 De Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione, iv: de Miraculis (1738).
47 1705 Boyle Lectures (7th edn., London, 1727, I), p. 383.
48 Tanner, Norman P. S.J. (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils (Londonand Washington, 1990), vol. II. p. 810Google Scholar.I am told, however, that ‘proved’ in this text need mean no more than ‘supported by reason’. Clarke, also, seems to say that the miracles of Christianity are less than one might expect from his use of ‘proved’. See Boyle Lectures I, p. 156.
49 Mark 13:22 f.
50 Matthew 46; 12:38–41; Mark 8:11–13; 15:31–32; Luke 4:23.
You have
Access