Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Critical assessment of miracles
Hume's argument against miracles
Hume's argument against miracles
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Critical assessment of miracles
Miracles
From the Latin word miraculum meaning “object of wonder” enters the word miracle. Many definitions have been formed for the notion of a miracle but most would agree that it is most commonly an unexplainable extraordinary event, inspiring awe and wonder unto its witnesses. Similar definitions state that it is a “supernatural event, contrary to the established constitution and course of things or a deviation from the known laws of nature”.
The term “a priori” refers primarily to the basis on which a proposition is known. If a statement has been written a priori it has been made without prior experience or empirical evidence of what it states. The author of the proposition has used reason to deduce his idea and it is not based on any observed fact.
Similar to the definitions above the philosopher Hume (1711-1776) offered his own definition, that miracles are “a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the deity” and Hume adds that a miracle could be defined as a “break in the natural order of events in the material world”. For the most part Hume puts forward that miracles are ‘impossible’ and that testimony to miracles should never be trusted. This can be seen in Hume’s first reason against the existence of miracles. He states that there has never been anyone attesting a miracle “of such unquestioned good-sense, education and learning, as to secure us against all delusion in themselves” and persuade us that a violation of a natural law is possible. Hume suggests that whenever anyone has witnessed a “miracle” they have been deluded into thinking so and ...
... middle of paper ...
... natural laws have been broken it is just mere lucky coincidence that
events have turned out as they are.
It is difficult to conclude whether miracles do logically exist. It
easier to believe that there are certain events that occur within our
world that we cannot fully understand. At the time they may be deemed
as violations of a natural law however as scientific knowledge
advances the event may become part of natural law that we simply
didn’t understand before. Some people will accept that God was the
ultimate cause of a miracle; because he is omnipotent he can do
anything which would include breaking natural laws and amazing people.
Hume’s argument about testimony is very convincing but I do not agree,
that miracles do not happen. I think it is more that events occur and
we do not fully understand their making.
This being so, it will be necessary to describe a little of the uniquely Catholic world view. In fine, it is a sacramental one. At the heart of all Catholic life is a miracle, a mystery, the Blessed Sacrament.
The chosen art work is "Miracle of St. Dominic." This painting is a tempera on panel, painted by the Renaissance artist Taddeo di Bartolo, in the year thirteen sixty three. The painting is currently housed at the McNay Art Museum, measuring approximately 10" high by 10" wide. In this particular painting we are witnessing a miracle by St. Dominical. There are spectators and a horse that lays above the man in red, who St. Dominical has brought back to life.
In his discussion 'Of Miracles' in Section X of An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, Hume defines a miracle as “a violation of the laws of nature and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws”1. Basically a miracle is something that happens which is contrary to what would happen given the structure of the universe. He also states that a miracle is a “transgression of a law of nature by a particular volation of the deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent”2. Hume argues that it is impossible to deduce the existence of a deity from the existence of the world, and that causes cannot be determined from effects.
In this book Miracles, C.S. Lewis challenges to the world that many do not believe in miracles anymore. He tackles the widely and most obvious thing that the supernatural occurrences are impossible, and establishes that the basis for such argument is not is not a deep knowledge of science
"The modern masters promise very little.. But these philosophers .. have indeed performed miracles.. They penetrate into the recesses of nature and show how she works in her hiding-places. They ascend into the heavens; they have discovered how the blood circulates, and the nature of the air we breath. They have acquired new and almost unlimited powers; they can command the thunders of heaven, mimic the earthquake, and even mock the invisible world of its own shadows"(47).
In other words, it is a gap between faith and scientific reasoning. In modern medicine, a miracle is described as any occurrence where a higher power, God, for example, takes over and intervenes benevolently in the fate of the patient.3 The doctor, along with everyone else, can only marvel. As a generality, it can be said that miracles are modern examples of the continuing contradiction between faith and reason.
So why does the existence of miracles have any meaning at all? Belief in miracles helps to bring a sense of the divine existence of God to those who believe in a material way. Miracles are a way for signs from God to be transferred to mankind, in a way that we are able to understand. These miracles or signs from God can help to show divine favour, and to support our moral beliefs and ideology, to let us know that we are on the path of righteousness for those who believe. But what then, constitutes a miracle? A miracle, according to Hume, is a violation of the laws of nature, something that cannot happen, but does. (Hume, 1777,E10.12) I believe that Hume believes that the the laws of nature, cannot ever be violated, for if one believes that this is possible, then the laws of nature are fallible and belief in the laws of nature which should be unalterable, would no longer apply. It is therefore, far more reasonable to believe that the laws of nature, which have proven themselves over and over again, are in fact to be believed and accepted over any possiblity for the existence of a miracle.
Dear Pat, I have just finished my study of C.S. Lewis's Miracles, and I wanted to discuss it with you. A miracle is an interference with Nature by a supernatural power. Since this is such a broad definition then there are obviously many opinions. Miracles either exist or the do not, and if they do exist then we must also ask how likely they are to occur. C.S Lewis explores both sides of this argument. Lewis notes that much of the world during his time came to believe that nothing existed except for what could be seen, smelled, heard, or tasted. People believed that there was nothing more than the natural world and the universe in which they lived. Although Lewis is careful not to classify any modern event as a miracle, they are possible,
make any claim for them as the element of proof is not there and thus
Miracles can not be explained, but scientists have tried to overlook the word miracle, and use the word coincidence instead. Some scientists have been looking at some miracles in the bible, and explaining them in scientific terms.
The problem of induction has a close relation with the inductive reasoning and such expression as “a posteriori”. There are two distinct methods of reasoning: deductive and inductive approaches. A deductive argument is the truth preserving in which if the premises are true than it follows that the conclusion will be true too. The deductive reasoning goes from the general to the specific things. On the other hand, an inductive argument is an argument that may contain true premises and still has a false conclusion. Induction or the inductive reasoning is the form of reasoning in which we make a conclusion about future experience or about presence based on the past experience. The problem of induction also has a connection with the expressions as “a priori” and “a posteriori”. The truth in a priori statement is embedded in the statement itself, and the truth is considered to be as common knowledge or justification without the need to experience. Whereas, in order to determine if a pos...
He made this claim based off of three points: first, he said that everything that happens in nature and in the course of time is the result of divine decree, and that miracles/events that contradict nature, would also contradict the nature of God. Second, he said that miracles do not help us gain a greater understanding of God, but instead order and eternalness in his natural laws are what give us understanding of his nature. Lastly, third, he pointed out that in scripture it calls for the killing of those that claim to be able to perform, or have had miracles performed on them, for it leads them away from God and to false prophets. The miracle described above has components that fall under each of these claims, and likewise are what I will use to criticize this
Doing this research paper didn’t really help me find anything extraordinary about the word magic. I pretty much knew what the word magic meant, from the comic books I read and the television I watch. It did however, make me view the word in more depth. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not implying in any way that the word magic, is dull, because it is just the opposite. I’m simply stating that because of my fascination with the subject of magic, I am already familiar with its background and capabilities. I chose the word magic because the concept of any human being possessing unexplainable, supernatural powers intrigues me to the point where I wish I had been endowed with those powers. If I had to choose a favorite; I would have to go with the two poems I obtained from the Concordance to Shakespeare and the Granger’s Index to Poetry. It all started when we received our word list. I looked for a word that I interested me, and that I thought would be easy to find information on. I guess, for the most part I was right. All the references available in our school library were pretty easy to find; such as the Roget’s Thesaurus, the Unabridged Dictionary, and surprisingly the Book of Quotations and the Concordance to the Bible. On one day there, at the St. Paul library four were down and there were four to go, which wasn’t too shabby for the first day. I figured I was doing well getting half of my list taken care of before Christmas vacation, and then during vacation I would finish the job.
side of the debate is that of why miracles lead us to believe in God?
Magic tricks have fascinated people of all ages for centuries. From David Copperfield to Chris Angel, many performers use magic to amaze and astound. One of the least elaborate types of magic tricks is the card trick. There are two main types of card tricks: there are mathematical card tricks and sleight of hand card tricks. The former are simple to learn, but do not impress audiences. To really attract attention, an aspiring magician should learn sleight of hand card tricks. Sleight of hand card tricks are tricks that use misdirection and special manipulations of a deck of cards to do something seemingly impossible. The techniques involved require much practice. While performing a sleight of hand trick, a magician must constantly be distracting the audience. Because of this, many people believe that they are not capable of learning sleight of hand magic. In order to prove them wrong, I will describe a simple sleight of hand trick that anyone can learn, as long as they remember that we all have the potential inside of us to do magic.