A-level
MIRACLES
[OCR]
Adrian Brown
What is required on the syllabus?
•OCR
(AS) 2760:
•God’s activity in the world; the concept of
miracle: Joshua 10:1-15
•OCR (A2) 2271:
• The concept of miracle and the criticisms
made by Hume and Wiles.
References to standard A-level
texts
•
•
It seems clear from the shape of the OCR
syllabus that Vardy’s The Puzzle of God has been
a major resource in their planning, not least
because it is the place where Wiles is fully
discussed at this level.
So it is worth having a closer look at the way
in which Vardy deals with the topic. I will
comment on what he doesn’t say (and should)
later!
References to standard A-level texts
OCR A2 Philosophy of Religion 2771 (b) Specification REFERENCES TO STANDARD TEXTS
PATRIC K J CLARKE Questi ons About God
PETER COLE Philosophy of Relig ion
BRIAN DAVIES An Intr oducti on to the Phil osophy of Relig ion
C STEPHEN EVANS Philosophy of Relig ion
JOHN HIC K Phil osophyof Reli gion
ANNE JORDAN ET AL Philosophy of Reli gion for A-level
MICHAEL PETERSON ET AL Reason and Reli gious Belief
MEL THOMPSON Teach Yourself the Philosophy of Relig ion
PETER VARDY The Puzzle of God
CLARKE
MIRACLES
COLE
c3p109-111
Concept
Crit iq ue: Hume
c3p110
c3p125
(standard refs to the Prob of Evil )
c3p125-134
EVANS
HIC K
JORDAN PETERSON THOMPSON
c10p190-211 c5p107-117 c3p38-39 c12p167f c9p190-211 c6p155-165
c4p28
Crit iq ue: Wiles
Impli cations for Prob of Evil
DAVIES
c10p191
c10p196
c5p107
VARDY
c17p175-192
c9p190-211 c2p42&c6p155-165 c17p175-184
c12p171f
c17p184f
c17p189-191
c8p63-76 c3p32-54
c6p130-140 c4p40-56 c8p82-101 c7p146-165 c7p167-192
Puzzle of Evil
Some non-standard A-level resources
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dialogue magazine has carried helpful articles accessible to A-level: no 4,
Apr 95, Hume on Miracles; no 10 Apr 98, Rationalism & Empiricism; no 11,
Nov 98, Miracles; no 13, Dec 99 Miracles;
At a more basic level, but excellent on Miracles and Laws of Science is
Mike Poole’s, A Guide to Science and Belief, Lion, 1997, ch.5
Do not overlook web resources, some of which are now written
specifically for A-level, for example: www.colfox.dorset.sch.uk/alevelre/
There is an excellent section including a fine introduction and selected
classic articles in Brian Davies, Philosophy of Religion: a guide and
anthology, Oxford, 2000, p397-437.
A significant omission from his references is Colin Brown’s Miracles and
the Critical Mind, Eerdmans/Paternoster, 1984.
A particular favourite of mine is the 1982 Zondervan book by Norman
Geisler, Miracles and Modern Thought.
An excellent recent article is Terence Penelhum’s The Paranormal,
miracles and David Hume, in Think Spring 2003
A model recent introduction is ch 4 of Michael Palmer’s The Question of
God, Routledge, 2002.
CONCEPTUAL CLARITY
•
•
Because of the way the term ‘miracle’ can be
variously used, it is important to agree on
which sense is being deployed.
One of the most helpful definitions (pace
Hume) is this one: “A miracle is an extraordinary
and striking event, intended by God to be a special
disclosure of his power and purpose.”
HUME’S APPROACH
•
•
This has dominated the
discussion in the literature and until
the advent of Wiles’ contribution,
Hume’s has set the agenda for the
standard lines of debate.
Note that for him miracles are
not impossible. His argument
concludes that we would have to
regard any report of them as
incredible.
LAWS OF NATURE
•
•
What precisely do we mean by Laws of Nature?
Mike Poole makes an interesting distinction
between Laws of Nature and Scientific Laws. His
point is that science has always a provisional
understanding. Our current formulation of our
belief in a particular regularity in the way the
universe appears to behave, according to our
investigations so far, is not necessarily equivalent
to either how the universe actually is, or how the
universe has to be, at all times and in all places.
BIBLICAL ‘MIRACLES’
•
•
•
Discussions in the Philosophy of Religion have
a tendency to allow the miracles agenda to be
set by philosophical writings, not least the
classic discussion of Hume.
This results in focussing on miracles as
violations of so-called ‘laws of nature’.
The Biblical tradition predates scientific ways
of talking about the world and what we
translate as ‘miracle’ had a different focus
for the writers and readers of Biblical
material.
[1]
BIBLICAL ‘MIRACLES’
[2]
•In
the New Testament the three terms we tend to translate into
‘miracle’ in English are:
Semeion – a ‘sign’ (focus on the purpose)
Teras – a ‘wonder’ (focus on the effect)
Dunamis – an ‘act of power’ (focus on cause)
•
Acts 2:22 “..Jesus..was a man accredited by God to you by
miracles (dunamesi), wonders (terasi) and signs (semeiois)..
which God did through him.. as you yourselves know.”
The emphasis here is on the significance of the event; its
impact on those who witnessed it. Notice that some Biblical
miracles will not fit into the category of what we would call
violations of laws of nature.
BIBLICAL ‘MIRACLES’
[3]
•
•
•
•
•
One helpful classification is as follows:
Miracles of nature – eg. Jesus stilling the storm on
Galilee [Mk 4:35-41]
Miracles of healing – eg. Woman with a
haemorrhage [Mk 5:25-34]
Miracles of exorcism – eg. Legion [Mk 5:9-20]
Miracles of timing – eg. Red Sea [Ex 14:21f]
BIBLICAL ‘MIRACLES’
[4]
Amazing events
attributed to God
Violations of laws of nature
Vng?
Vg
NVg
BIBLICAL ‘MIRACLES’
[5]
Amazing events
attributed to God
Violations of laws of nature
Given that no-one has
seriously suggested that
there are other agents
than God who can violate
laws of nature, we
should perhaps redraw
the diagram like this:
Vg
NVg
The Sun Stands Still
1 Now Adoni-Zedek king of Jerusalem heard that Joshua had taken Ai and totally
destroyed it, doing to Ai and its king as he had done to Jericho and its king, and
that the people of Gibeon had made a treaty of peace with Israel and were living
near them. 2 He and his people were very much alarmed at this, because Gibeon
was an important city, like one of the royal cities; it was larger than Ai, and all its
men were good fighters. 3 So Adoni-Zedek king of Jerusalem appealed to Hoham
king of Hebron, Piram king of Jarmuth, Japhia king of Lachish and Debir king of
Eglon. 4 "Come up and help me attack Gibeon," he said, "because it has made
peace with Joshua and the Israelites."
5 Then the five kings of the Amorites-the kings of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth,
Lachish and Eglon-joined forces. They moved up with all their troops and took up
positions against Gibeon and attacked it.
6 The Gibeonites then sent word to Joshua in the camp at Gilgal: "Do not
abandon your servants. Come up to us quickly and save us! Help us, because all
the Amorite kings from the hill country have joined forces against us."
7 So Joshua marched up from Gilgal with his entire army, including all the best
fighting men. 8 The LORD said to Joshua, "Do not be afraid of them; I have given
them into your hand. Not one of them will be able to withstand you."
9 After an all-night march from Gilgal, Joshua took them by surprise. 10 The
LORD threw them into confusion before Israel, who defeated them in a great
victory at Gibeon. Israel pursued them along the road going up to Beth Horon
and cut them down all the way to Azekah and Makkedah. 11 As they fled
before Israel on the road down from Beth Horon to Azekah, the LORD hurled
large hailstones down on them from the sky, and more of them died from the
hailstones than were killed by the swords of the Israelites.
12 On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the
LORD in the presence of Israel:
"O sun, stand still over Gibeon,
O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."
13 So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of
Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full
day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the
LORD listened to a man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!
15 Then Joshua returned with all Israel to the camp at Gilgal.
EXAMPLES OF MIRACLES:
contemporary ‘violations of laws of nature’
• [1] Rice is not conserved in Olivenza
• [2] Korean healing miracles
• [3] Teeth filled in Chile
• [4] Welsh RS teacher’s hearing restored
• [5] Sri Lankan leg shrinkage
Rice not conserved in Olivenza
New Scientist, 8th Apr 1982
On the afternoon of 25th January, 1949, Leanora, the cook of
the religious institute in Olivenza, went down to the kitchen to
light her stoves. It was the invariable habit of the institute to
offer dinner to the poor families of the neighbourhood as well,
but on this occasion Leandra opened the cupboard to find only
three cups of rice, about 750 grams in all. She proposed to cook
this up with another 750 grams of meat, some onions and a bay
leaf to feed at least the paying students. Then, putting the pot
on the fire, Leandra invoked the aid of the blessed Juan Macias
to care for the poor who would find nothing to eat that evening.
Then she went on to other tasks, keeping one eye on the pot on
the fire in the way that any cook does. After about a quarter of
an hour, she stopped to check the rice and was amazed to find it
about to spill over the brim of the 10-litre kettle.
Other cooking pots were produced one of about 8 and another of
10 litres. Leandra and the other women who had swarmed into the
kitchen to see what was happening ladled the overflow from the
first pot into the second two and, from there, distributed the rice
to all the comers.
They kept this up for four hours. More than 150 people are
reported to have eaten their fill. Many people took quantities of
rice home in remembrance of the event. The miraculous
multiplication ended only when the town priest, director of the
institute, suggested that the stove be shut off since the hungry
had been fed. All agreed the rice had been tasty and of excellent
quality. No rice beyond the original three cups was ever seen to be
added to the first pot. The Congregation was able to call 22 eye
witnesses who testified to this since a considerable crowd had
gathered in the fours hours over which the miracle took place.
Most were women from the neighbourhood, not trained observers,
but wise in the cooking of rice.
Korean healing miracles
Restoration, July/Aug 1978
Not far from the north gate of the city of Seoul an
indigenous church group numbering three thousand
have met for prayer regularly every morning from 5am
till 7am. The whole church group have met in this way
every morning of the week for five years. A roster of
200 members pray all night until the 5am arrivals take
over. A visiting missionary on one occasion was asked to
give “a short word not longer than an hour, as children
have homework to do before school, and others have to
get to work.” Neighbours who do not know the Lord are
invited to the prayer meetings where they become
disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ.
At the week-end several thousand listen to evangelistic
meetings. At the close leading elders rise to give out their
names and addresses and inform new converts to join them
at 5am next morning if they live in the vicinity. This church
group had a prayer week-end up on the saddle of the Two
Horned Mountain. From Friday night a thousand or more
gathered and grouped around fires all over the mountain
worshipping and praising the Lord. The missionary invited to
speak wondered about meals - as there seemed to be no
cessation for this pastime. Near midnight he assembled his
camp bed for needed sleep as he was to speak at 5am.
Awakened at 4.30 am he found the praise sessions going on
and the mountain resounding to their worship. On Sunday,
at evening time, the presiding elders sent Christians to the
outlying villages to bring in in the sick.
Later they begin to arrive - leprous, paralytic, blind,
deaf, mute, etc. The missionary noted one man brought
in on a carrying stretcher who breathed blood bubbles
from his mouth everytime he exhaled. The life
expectancy could only be hours. All night the sick lay
around tended lovingly. As the dawn broke the elders
called the believers to prayer, praying for each
affliction in turn. The missionary was, of his own
confession, a dispensationalist - not believing miracles
to be characteristic of the church after the apostolic
age. The Koreans prayed for the paralytics, and healing
came to many, demonstrated by jumping and praising
God. The deaf heard and the dumb spoke. The
missionary noted one leprous sufferer without eyes and
deformed, the skin shewing the disease.
Before his very eyes the eyesockets filled and new
sparkling eyes looked out at him. The skin took the
texture of a babe’s. He went and touched and stroked
the new skin.
What could he say as he faced the final message? They
knew more of the power of God than he did. Still, it
was more essential that souls be saved for eternity
than for physical healing, for all must eventually die.
The “blood bubble sufferer” had not been healed. He
would take him as an example that the soul was of more
importance than healing. Soon after commencing his
message he was about to point to this particular sick
man to underline his emphasis, when the man rose from
his stretcher and stood, filling out in body before him.
The blood bubbles ceased. He was made whole and
praised the Lord. The crowd gathered round praising
God for this mighty wonder. The missionary was glad he
was left neglected - he had nothing to say.
Teeth filled in Chile
Crusade, October 1976
Now those who look for healing are asked to pray for
it. The evangelists and the pastor lay hands on some,
but there are so many they cannot touch them all.
“Put your hand where you need healing,” says the
evangelist. And all around the little church these
simple folk place their own hands where most they
suffer.
Now you see what is the most common and the most
cruel of the physical afflictions of these needy
people. For most in the meeting are touching their
teeth. All the missionaries hereabouts confirm the
truth of this.
Deficiencies in diet are such that tooth decay is so
prevalent as to be almost universal. (Some might say
that there are worse maladies than bad teeth but
those who say so are not usually suffering from
toothache at the time.)
So the prayer for healing is offered. And now those
who already know that this prayer is answered are
invited to tell us, to show us, what has happened.
Because the evangelist sees in me a sceptical European
I am summoned to the platform to see for myself the
works of God. Doubting Thomas is not allowed to lurk in
the corner. With the assistance of the evangelist’s
torch (who,expecting great things from God, has come
prepared), I look into their mouths, one after another.
And I know that what I see is a miracle. For these folk
never go to see the dentist. The poor of Chile are poor
beyond our imagination. Dental treatment is entirely
beyond their means and the only treatment, could they
afford it, is extraction. But these teeth have been filled.
And the filling has the form of a silver cross set in each
tooth.
One little boy - and, though he is in rags. I do not think I
have ever seen a child so happy - shows me his teeth.
Several are filled with what looks like silver. But God
saves his best gifts for children and this little one can
show me a tooth into which is set, delicately but quite
distinctly, a golden cross. It is this boy, now so radiant,
who minutes previously had so upset me with his
anguished prayer.
All this happened (though it is not all that
happened) on the evening of July 31, 1976, in
the little village of Labranza near Temuco in
the south of Chile. What I write is not
fiction, as others can corroborate.
A PRIORI REJECTIONS
•
Spinoza is a good example of a thinker who made his
mind up about the possibility of miracles without
reference to any relevant empirical evidence. His
presuppositions were those of a rationalist and a
pantheist. As a rationalist, he accepted as true only
what he saw as self evident. As a pantheist, God’s
activity was no more than nature’s regular activity.
His argument boils down to a dogmatic assertion:
1. Miracles are violations of laws of nature
2. Natural laws are immutable
3. Therefore, miracles are impossible
EMPIRICISM AND RATIONALISM
•Historically,
these are two distinct major
schools of philosophy whose approach to the
question of miracles should differ because of
their presuppositions about what counts as
valid knowledge.
Descartes
Spinoza
Rationalists
Locke
Hume
Empiricists
EMPIRICISM AND RATIONALISM
•
•
You would expect that empiricists, with their
emphasis on the importance of sense data as
evidence, would be interested in whether or
not you can establish whether a miracle has
actually taken place.
Rationalists may be expected to have decided
beforehand whether or not miracles are
possible.
IS MIRACLE AS A SUSPENSION OF A
NATURAL LAW SELF-CONTRADICTORY?
•
•
•
Consider this extract from Alistair McKinnon’s
Miracle and Paradox, American Philosophical Quarterly
4 (1997):
“The idea of a supension of natural law is selfcontradictory. This follows from the meaning of the
term … Natural laws bear no relation to civil codes …
They are simply highly generalised shorthand
descriptions of how things do in fact happen …
Hence there can be no suspensions of natural law
rightly understood. Or … Miracle contains a
contradiction in terms.”
Is McKinnon’s argument right?
SURELY IT IS INCREDIBLE TO BELIEVE
IN MIRACLES IN AN AGE OF SCIENCE!
•
•
Consider this letter posted in THE TIMES on 13 July
1984 by 14 UK professors of science:
“It is not logically valid to use science as an argument
against miracles. To believe that miracles cannot
happen is as much an act of faith as to believe that
they can happen. We gladly accept the virgin birth, the
gospel miracles, and the resurrection of Christ as
historical events … miracles are unprecedented events
… science (based as it is upon the observation of
precedents) can have nothing to say on the subject.
It’s ‘laws’ are only generalisations of our experience.”
Vardy’s discussion – 1
VARIOUS DEFINITIONS - 1
•[1]
A miracle is a change for the better that can
take place in a person in even the most unlikely
situation.
•[2] A miracle is an event or occurrence which
the believer considers to have religious
significance, even though it is not in fact due to
a creator God.
•[3] A miracle is an event which happens against
the laws of nature, and which is brought about
by the action of the everlasting and timeless
God.
Vardy’s discussion – 2
VARIOUS DEFINITIONS - 2
•[4]
A miracle is an event caused by the action of an
everlasting and timeless God. The event is either in
accordance with the normal laws of nature, or else
brought about by a human being, in which case God
will be the primary cause whilst the person will be the
secondary cause.
•Vardy makes the point that we are assuming in the discussion
that we are talking about God who can act or intervene in the
world he has created.
Vardy’s discussion – 3
MIRACLE AS A CHANGE FOR THE
BETTER IN A PERSON?
•Vardy
cites Alyosha’s transformation in
Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov as an
example of what Sutherland sees as a true
miracle.
•(But) this use of miracle doesn’t demand a
creator God.
Vardy’s discussion – 4
MIRACLE AS AN EVENT WHICH BELIEVERS
CONSIDER TO HAVE RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE
(EVEN IF NOT THE WORK OF GOD)
•
•
Any event could be a ‘disclosure event’ for a
believer. This is an anti-realist view. The only
thing that matters is that the believer sees it
as significant. No correspondence is
necessary: Moore’s, “God causes what nothing
causes”. The believer says, “God” or “miracle”,
where non-believers would say, “baffling”. ie. a
miracle is an event which has no explanation at
all on this view.
Vardy’s discussion – 5
A MIRACLE IS AN EVENT CAUSED BY GOD EITHER
IN ACCORDANCE WITH KNOW LAWS OF NATURE
OR BROUGHT ABOUT BY HUMAN BEINGS.
•This
is a realist understanding. ie. A miracle iff God did
it. Claims about violations of laws of nature are not
provable. They are articles of faith. On this definition
God acts providentially within the structures he has
ordained. eg. Holland’s level crossing example.
•The miracle is in the eye of the beholder but unlike the
non-realist view, the action of God, not merely a belief
coherent with the religious form of life of the believer.
Vardy’s discussion – 6
MIRACLES HAPPEN AGAINST THE LAWS OF
NATURE AND ARE BROUGHT ABOUT BY A
TIMELESS AND EVERLASTING GOD
•This
rests on Hume’s definition: “A transgression of a law of
nature by a particular violation of the Deity, or by the imposition
of some invisible agent.”
•This fits a number of New Testament miracles –
God/Jesus rules over nature.
•Swinburne points out the undesirability of allowing
“clumsy and ad hoc” counter-instances to natural laws
due to this kind of miracle. It would “upset the whole
structure of science.”
Vardy’s discussion – 7
ATTACKS ON THIS DEFINITION:
1. HUME
In the balance for
rational human beings is:
• [a] The improbability of
miracle(s)
• [b] The evidence that
they have occurred.
•
[a]
[b]
The wise man, proportioning his belief to the
evidence, will always conclude that it is more likely
that natural laws have held good than that a miracle
has occurred.
Vardy’s discussion – 8
ATTACKS:
HUME - 2
Vardy paraphrases Hume’s argument:
•“A wise man proportions his belief to the
evidence. A miracle is a violation of the laws of
nature and is therefore an event which past human
experience is uniformly against. This in itself
makes it overwhelmingly probable that the miracle
did not occur, unless the testimony to its
occurrence is of such superlative quality that it
can be seriously be weighed against our own
uniform past experience”
•
Vardy’s discussion – 9
ATTACKS:
HUME - 3
“In fact, however, the testimony to miracles is not of
this character at all. The standard of the witnesses to
miracles is not high. The human capacity for accepting or
believing the unlikely has all too probably been at work,
the stories of miracles deriving from ‘ignorant and
barbarous places and nations’ and, in any case, the miracle
stories of different religions contradict one another.
Consequently testimony to miracles can never establish
them so that one could proceed from a proper assurance
that they occurred to infer some theistic conclusions.”
•
Vardy’s discussion – 10
HUME - 4
Vardy spells out the meaning of each stage of the argument:
•Examples of miracles of this kind.
•What it means to say that miracles are not rational.
•On witnesses:
•
The testimony is poor; unreliable, untrustworthy,
unintelligent, uneducated, seeking advantage.
•
We are predisposed to love the fantastic.
•
Source of miracle stories is generally the ignorant &
barbarious.
•All religions claim miracles to buttress contradictory truth
claims; the stories cancel out.
•
Vardy’s discussion – 11
HUME – 5 Some critical remarks #1
•1.
?
Are laws of nature set in stone as Hume seems to
suggest? The history of science shows that our
understanding is always provisional. {AB: the key question
here is not about particular historical formulations of
laws, but lawlikeness as a general belief. Is the
methodological assumption about laws tied to
metaphysical beliefs about laws. For a naturalist – yes.
For a theist – not necessarily; God may not be bound by
his regular way of running the universe} (cf. Hume’s
generally anti-inductivist stance)
•
Vardy’s discussion – 12
HUME – 6 Some critical remarks #2
•2.
Hume’s discussion only deals with reports of
miracles. What if Hume had experienced a
miracle himself. Might he believe it as a
trustworthy, intelligent, educated, neutral,
informed and civilized individual?
• {Is it Hume’s inherent scepticism, or poverty
of religious experience, or both, that matter
here?}
?
Vardy’s discussion – 12
HUME – 7 Some critical remarks #3
•3.
?
Today’s reports of miracles are often
supported by scientific evidence eg. at Lourdes.
This overcomes many of the Humean difficulties.
•
Vardy’s discussion – 13
HUME – 8 Some critical remarks #4
•4.
?
Neither Judaism, Christianity or Islam relies on
miracles as the (only) basis of belief cf. Jesus & Satan’s
temptations, “an evil generation…seeks a sign” (Mt 16:4)
etc.
• If you already believe that God exists, it is rational to
believe God acts miraculously.
• Believing reports of miracles as a basis for belief in any
one religion is not enough.
• But remarkable events in themselves do not prove that
God was the cause. It could be, say, psychosomatic
{AB:
cf. God-of-the-Gaps thinking}
A.E.Taylor on Hume
In “David Hume and the miraculous”,
Philosophical Studies, Macmillan, 1934,
A.E.Taylor famously argues that Hume’s
conclusion can only urge us not to believe in
second hand reports of miracles – not that
miracles cannot occur, or that anyone who
witnesses one for himself ought to refuse to
believe the evidence of his senses.
Critical lines of response to Hume (Davis p401)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Is it true that we should only believe that for
which we have personal evidence?
Is it true that reports of miracles only come from
dubiously reliable sources?
Does the fact that reports of miracles come from
people who have conflicting beliefs mean that none
of these reports should be taken seriously?
Are miracles as intrinsically improbable as Hume
makes them out to be?
A.E.Taylor on Hume
“It is quietly forgotten [by Hume] that, on the premises,
there cannot be said to be ‘uniform experience’ against the
resurrection of a dead man or any other sequence of events.
At best I have only a uniformity within the range of my own
experience to urge; a narrator who professes to have seen
the resuscitation of actually appealing to his own experience
as the foundation of the story. Thus, unless I am to assume
that
my own personal experiences are the standard of the
•
credible – and if I do assume this, there is an end to all
•correction of expectations – it is a petitio principii [ a
begging of the question] to say that there is ‘uniform
experience’ against any event to which any man claims to be
able to testify”.
Ch9, p336
Vardy’s discussion –14
MAURICE WILES
In his 1986 SCM book of his Bampton Lectures, God’s
action in the world, Wiles claimed that there is only one act
of God encompassing the world as a whole. Wiles says that
God never intervenes in the world by individual acts. He
says that even if God did miracles, understood as
interventions, they would be rare and should not be
relatively arbitrary or trivial. But given that God appears
not to have been concerned enough to stop major
atrocities, miracles as reported infer a strange and
debased idea of God, not worthy of our worship!
•
•
•
•
Vardy’s discussion – 15
MAURICE WILES
•Thus
Wiles is raising a moral objection to the notion of a
God whose miraculous interventions are seemingly arbitrary
and focussed on relatively trivial matters. He also doubts,
along with Brian Hebblethwaite, that miracles are
consistent with a mature response to the problem of evil.
This requires that God maintains the stable structures of
creation, and also thereby answers the question of why God
does not do more to alleviate suffering if he is able to do
so.
•
•
•
Vardy’s discussion –16
MAURICE WILES
•Wiles
and other theologians assume that we can
rationally understand the ways of God – operating within
the Kantian tradition of “religion within the limits of
reason alone.” Vardy points to Paul’s preaching of “Christ
crucified … foolishness to the Greeks (philosophers, see 1
Corinthinans 1)”, and suggests that God is beyond our
apprehension and irreducible to human constructs, at
least in significant measure.
•
•
•
•
Vardy’s discussion – 17 MAURICE
WILES – useful quotations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
“The world as a whole as a single act of God”
“There are no good grounds for speaking of particular divine
actions with respect to particular phenomena”
“..it would be strange that no miraculous intervention prevented
Auschwitz or Hiroshima, while the purposes apparently forwarded
by some of the miracles acclaimed in traditional Christian faith
seem trivial by comparison.”
Wiles would “deny God the freedom to act without causal restraint
in the world.”
Wiles sees, “no reason for the Christian believer to affirm any
sort of direct divine intervention in the natural order and good
reasons for not doing so.”
An interventionist God for Wiles is, “both implausible and full of
difficulty for a reasoned Christian faith.”
“Why does God not intervene more often?” Hebblethwaite
So what do you think?
•And
of some importance as you approach the
examination, do you know the material well enough to
be able to answer any question thrown at you?