Argument from miracles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Argument from Miracles is an argument for the existence of God relying on eyewitness testimony of impossible (or extremely improbable events) to establish the active intervention of a supernatural supreme being (or supernatural agents acting on behalf of that being). One example is the claims of some Christians that historical evidence proves that Jesus rose from the dead, and this can only be explained if God exists. Commonly, Christian apologists using this version of the argument will first argue that the New Testament is a reliable historical document, and from there show that the evidence can only be explained by a genuine miracle. For example, a hoax is said to be ruled out on the grounds that the disciples would not have died for a lie.
Contents |
[edit] Criticisms
One of the most famous criticisms of the argument from miracles comes from David Hume. Hume argued that the only reasons we can trust human testimony is because of natural regularities of human testimony. Because miracle violate observed regularities, extreme skepticism is warranted. Hume formulated the conclusion of his argument in this way: "That no testimony 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."
Another response to the argument from miracles is to simply say that the evidence is weak. One modern critic of the resurrection put it this way: "Can you imagine a movement today claiming that a soldier in World War Two rose physically from the dead, but when you asked for proof all they offered you were a mere handful of anonymous religious tracts written in the 1980's? Would it be even remotely reasonable to believe such a thing on so feeble a proof? Well--no." [1]
[edit] Response to criticisms
Hume's argument is often criticized on the grounds that it is question-begging. Some apologists have proposed alternative to Hume's maxim for judging miracles. C.S. Lewis argued that we should judge miracles based on how "fitting" they are. Similarly, William Lane Craig has argued they should be judged by their "religio-historical context." When the argument from miracles is used to establish the truth of a particular religion rather than just the existence of God, it is also possible to provide another argument for the existence of God and then argue that God's existence makes miracles credible. Some have even argued that the evidence for a specific miracle can be so strong as to meet Hume's standard.
In addition to defending the reliability of the New Testament (such as by arguing the gospels were written by eyewitnesses), one response to criticism of their reliability is to try to bypass the issue. Gary Habermas has argued that the resurrection of Jesus can be proved using only facts agreed upon by all (or a majority of) critical scholars.
[edit] See also
Death and Resurrection of Jesus
[edit] References
- Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, L. A. Selby Bigge, ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902
- Lewis, C.S. Miracles, Harper, San Francisco, 2001 ISBN 0-06-065301-9
