Miracles and the Laws of Nature

The philosophical analysis of what a miracle is and whether testimony can ever justify belief that one has occurred.

Definition

A miracle is standardly defined as an event brought about by a god that would not have occurred in the ordinary course of nature; the topic concerns its definition and the evidential weight of reports of such events.

Scope

This topic covers the definition of a miracle as a violation or transcendence of natural law brought about by divine agency, Hume's influential argument that testimony can never establish a miracle, and the Bayesian and other responses to it. It treats miracles as alleged tradition-specific evidence within the diversity of religions. It does not cover the design or cosmological arguments, treated separately.

Core questions

• What distinguishes a miracle from a merely unexplained or improbable event?
• Can human testimony ever make belief in a miracle reasonable?
• Does the rarity of miracles by definition outweigh any testimony for them?
• Do competing miracle claims across religions cancel one another out?

Key theories

Humean argument against miracles

Hume argues that a miracle is a violation of a law of nature supported by uniform experience, so the proof against it is as complete as possible; no testimony can outweigh this unless the testimony's falsehood would be even more miraculous, which it never is.

Defense of miracles as evidence

Swinburne defines a miracle as a non-repeatable counter-instance to a law of nature caused by a god, and argues that historical and testimonial evidence can in principle make belief in a particular miracle reasonable, especially within a broader theistic framework.

History

Aquinas analyzed miracles as events exceeding the capacity of created nature. Hume's 1748 essay 'Of Miracles' set the terms of the modern debate, arguing that testimony can never warrant belief in a violation of natural law. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, Swinburne defended the evidential possibility of miracles and Earman gave a Bayesian critique arguing that Hume's general argument is flawed.

Debates

Whether testimony can establish a miracle

Hume holds that uniform experience against a miracle always outweighs testimony for it; Earman argues, on Bayesian grounds, that strong or multiple independent testimony could in principle render a miracle probable, so Hume's blanket argument fails.

How a miracle should be defined

Defining a miracle as a violation of natural law invites the objection that an exception just shows the supposed law was not a law; Swinburne refines the definition as a non-repeatable counter-instance, while others prefer a definition in terms of divine agency.

Key figures

• David Hume
• Thomas Aquinas
• Richard Swinburne
• John Earman
• J. L. Mackie

Seminal works

• hume1748
• swinburne1970
• earman2000

Frequently asked questions

What is Hume's argument against miracles?

Hume argues that since a miracle is a violation of a law of nature established by uniform experience, the evidence against it is maximal, and no human testimony is strong enough to outweigh it unless the falsehood of the testimony would itself be more miraculous than the event reported.

Is a miracle just an event science cannot yet explain?

Not on the standard philosophical definition. A merely unexplained event might later be explained naturally, whereas a miracle is defined as an event brought about by divine agency that nature left to itself would not produce.