By definition, a miracle is impossible.” Discuss.

In order to judge whether a miracle is possible, one must first decide on a definition of the concept of a miracle, which has been widely debated amongst a range of philosophers over many years. St Augustine defined a miracle as “the operation of a higher law overriding the natural law”; whereas Hume largely rejected miracles, defining them as “a violation of the laws of nature.” Indeed, it is clear that a miracle can be interpreted in many different ways, and undoubtedly a religious believer will interpret an event in a different way to an atheist. Therefore, whether a miracle is possible is entirely dependent on the way in which it is viewed, as Fyodor Dostoyevsky stated, “it is not miracles that generate faith, it’s faith that generates miracles.”A key figure of opposition to the existence of miracles is Hume, who famously rejected the concept of miracles, and would argue that they are, by definition, impossible. He argues that miracles cannot be proven, and that empiricism is the only reliable guide to reality, and as we cannot reason accurately beyond what we can see, it is impossible to make assumptions about the existence of miracles. In Hume’s eyes, there is always a practical, scientific explanation for miracles, and the progression of science mean that even events which are inexplicable now, will be later. A scientific world view is based on case and effect as well as probability, and the principle of induction- making scientific judgements based on many instances of an event. For example on can induce, “if I let go of this pen it will fall to the ground”, because they have witnessed many instances of gravity at work. It is highly rational to believe the probable, and irrational to believe the improbable, and by definition a miracle is improbable, and therefore irrational to believe in, and it is more rational to believe they are impossible. However, Hume himself has an exception to this rule; he states, “No evidence is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact which it endeavours to establish.” Therefore, miracles, even for Hume, are not completely impossible. Furthermore, Hume’s description of a miracle elevated the laws of nature to being prescriptive as opposed to descriptive. Laws of nature simply explain what has been observed, rather than what nature can or cannot do. Therefore if an event “transgresses” these laws, that just makes the event unusual as opposed to impossible. Furthermore, Hume specified four main ways in which miracles, and accounts of them, are unreliable. Firstly, he speculated that witnesses are generally uneducated; for example, those who witnessed the resurrection were simply fishermen who became followers of Jesus. However, this is not a strong argument as the veracity of a testimony is not defined by education- you do not need certain GCSE’s or other qualifications to give evidence in court. Furthermore education develops one’s schema, and therefore an educated person is more likely to manipulate events in order to fit them to the schema of what they would expect. Hume also argued that miracles are a way to exploit human psychology; where religious people exploit humans’ natural interest in the unusual. Moreover, Hume held that miracles are usually reported by those in “ignorant and barbarous” nations, and that is why they do not happen as regularly in modern times. However, this case seems to be asserted without much evidence, the standard of living and education has drastically improved since the time of Jesus, yet those citizens weren’t “barbarous”, they were just of their time, and this reason is not strong enough to discredit their accounts. Finally, Hume pointed out that almost all religions have their own miraculous claims, all of which demonstrate the truth of their own religion. Although this is a very convincing point, some have argued that God simply wishes to express himself in many ways through many different religions.Despite this, there are philosophers who agree with Hume and are sceptical of the possibility of miracles. Maurice Wiles was an Anglican minister, and the Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford; who’s 1986 Brampton Lectures famously contained his view on miracles. Wiles outlined the problems in defining miracles, and questioned their theological significance. For Wiles, for the Church to even acknowledge the possibility of miracles “raises acute problems for theodicy. Wiles saw miracles essential to Christianity, for example the Virgin Birth, as legendary with no historical accuracy and thus not essential to faith. Furthermore, he questions why some miracles, such as healings and Lourdes, happen over others, such as feeding the hungry, and argues that miracles do not demonstrate an all-loving, all-powerful God taking action in the world. Therefore, theologically, it would be better for God to not do miracles at all, because “ it would seem 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.” However, many Christians argue that the Bible states “His ways are not our ways”, and we cannot try to mould God in order for Him to conform to Christian rationality. Rudolf Bultmann took a similar approach to miracles, as demythologised the New Testament by removing the supernatural element, as he believed it would take us closer to the real message of Jesus. On the other hand, there are many philosophers who argue that miracles are in fact possible. Aquinas defines a miracle as “those things done by a divine power apart from the order usually followed in things.” He argued that there were three types of miracle- an event done by God which nature could never do, an event that could not be done in the order it took place or one which is done in nature, but the event did not coincide with the usual operating of nature. There are clear examples of all of these in the Bible; Jesus walking on water is something nature could never allow, Jesus’ resurrection is in the opposite order to nature where you are usually born and then die as opposed to rising again, and the healing of the blind demonstrated throughout Jesus’ ministry is not in the usual operation of nature. Aquinas argues that these are all entirely possible events and a miracle is therefore about God’s intervention as opposed to the transgression of the laws of nature. Furthermore, many arguments against miracles rely on science and the laws of nature, yet some question this scientific worldview. Hondreich’s Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Physics states that one cannot know the location and momentum of a particle at the same time, which undermines Newtonian Physics and calls to question a world that is governed by a set of constantly applied rules. Some now question whether the Laws of nature are determined or statistical, and simply inferred from a series of recurring events. If this is the case, it is difficult to argue that they can sometimes be broken. However, it is important to now that the Uncertainty Principle only applies to subatomic particles and after this, breaks down due to decoherence. R.F Holland proffered an alternative definition of a miracle, arguing that they are “a remarkable and beneficial coincidence that is interpreted in a religious fashion.” His famous analogy consists of a child being stuck on a railway line in a pedal car. A train is coming, but the driver fails to see the child. However just at the right moment and aneurysm is the driver’s head is triggered and he faints, his hand is taken off the lever, and the brake is automatically activated. The train then stops in front of the child. There is no violation of nature, however for a religious person, this may have religious significance and be thought of as a miracle.To conclude, although Hume has a very strong argument, and indeed many support this argument such as Wiles and Bultmann, even Hume himself does not completely dismiss miracles as impossibility. However, Hume raises many valid points about the lack of substantial evidence to support miraculous claims, as well as Wiles Questioning the role of an all-loving God. Therefore, R.F. Holland raises the most valid point, concluding that religious belief dictates our view on miracles, making them entirely possible, yet extremely unlikely in the eyes of skeptics.