Miracles are the violation of law by a supernatural being
“The transgression
of a natural law by
a particular
volition of the
deity, or by the
interposition of
some invisible
agent”
This makes miracles easy to identify.
Restricts God’s
actions to the
laws of nature,
and it does not
focus on God’s
interaction
with the world.
They are the least likely
of events (maximally
improbable
"A miracle is a violation of the laws of
nature, and as firm and unalterable
proof has established these laws, the
proof against a miracle, from the
very nature of the fact, is as entire as
any argument from experience that
can possibly be imagined"
"A wise man...proportions
his belief to his evidence"
Christianity is based upon
miracles, so it is necessary to
believe in them to believe.
Miracles in the Bible
are symbolic - Wiles
“mere reason is
insufficient to
convince us of
its veracity
(accuracy)”
All religious belief is contrary
to existing (apriori) knowledge
There is insufficient testimony
"No testimony is sufficient
enough to establish a miracle,
unless the testimony be of such
a kind, that it's falsehood
proves more miraculous than
the fact which it endeavours to
establish"
Those who testify miracles may be
deceived, deluded or lying, cannot trust.
Miracles are improbable events, so
they need witnesses of higher
credulity than probable events
In order to confirm a miracle, there
must be a significant number of
witnesses with sound education.
there has never been “in all history, a
miracle attested by a sufficient number
of men of such unquestioned
good-sense, education and learning to
secure us from all delusion”
Did not specify how
many witnesses and
of what level of
education
The most impressive testimony will
at most counterbalance the
unlikelihood of the event, not
confirm that it actually happened.
“The passion of surprise
and wonder arising from
miracles…gives people a
tendency to believe in
those events”
Humans are naturally
drawn to the
miraculous and love
being ‘dazzled’ by the
mysterious, so can form
unreasonable beliefs on
experiences which
cannot be trusted
"A religionist
may be an
enthusiast
and sees what
he sees has
no reality: he
may know his
narratives to
be false, yet
persevere in
it, for the sake
of promoting
so holy a
cause"
Is it sufficient to deny all miracles
of any credibility due to this?
Scepticism has been
wrong – e.g. European
scientists initially
denied the existence of
the duck-billed platypus
despite the evidence.
Miracles are "observed chiefly among ignorant and
barbarous nations"
Stories of miracles from ‘primitive
and barbarous’ nations that do
not understand what is really
(scientifically) happening.
E.g. miracle of the dancing sun at
Fatima, Portugal, may have been a
result of staring at the sun too long,
causing retinal distortion.
Rome produced
Tacticus, a man who
recorded miracles,
described by Hume
as “the greatest and
most penetrating
genius of perhaps all
antiquity”
Miracles are contrary facts
Claims of miracles
come from many
different sources
Many religious beliefs are
based on miracles
People of different faiths all
claim that their religious
experience is evidence that
their belief system is true
Each claim counters those made by other religions
Not all miracles can be right as they
cancel each other out, so they must all be
wrong.
Are miracles the basis of
religions? James would
argue not, that deeper
feelings and personal views
are central, theology is
secondary.