Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Accounts of Miracles and Their Support of Belief in God
The definition of a miracle is a violation of the "laws of nature", it
is an exception that is beyond all naturalistic explanations, meaning
they must be explained supernaturally. So do accounts of miracles
support the belief in God? Firstly, one must decided whether there is
sufficient evidence to prove the existence of miracles, something that
people have disagreed about a lot.
A McKinnon says that natural laws are just descriptions of the 'actual
course of events' so to say that a natural law has been violated would
be a contradiction, these events merely show that our natural laws are
at present inadequate. On the other hand, McKinnon's argument
presupposes the exclusivity of naturalistic explanations and there is
no a priori reason as to why a presupposition should be accepted,
unless one can prove that supernatural causal activity is impossible.
Also, one cannot assume that the law in question is inadequate if
there is a violation of a natural law, all that is inadequate is the
belief that everything must have a naturalistic explanation.
David Hume argues that one cannot prove the existence of miracles
because the evidence for miracles is less than that of established
laws; he suggests we should always look at things in a naturalistic
way and should favour the naturalistic explanations as opposed to
supernatural explanations. Hume believes that a wise person will
always look at the available evidence then proportion their belief
according to this, so therefore accepting a miracle would be
ridiculous due to the amount of su...
... middle of paper ...
...ion as
one cannot accept the exception as well as the rule within the same
structure. This is impossible. One must ask, what is a naturalistic
explanation? It observes nature, making empirical generalisations that
are known as 'laws of nature', and these have a certain predictive
value. This predictive value would be destroyed by any modifications
to some laws, which are so axiomatic to the structure of scientific
explanation. Trying to accept both the rule and the exception will
upset this structure and the very foundations of all scientific
explanation.
After studying arguments about whether or not one can believe in the
existence of miracles I believe that miracles do occur and that they
have a supernatural explanation as I believe there is more evidence to
support this, therefore supporting any belief in God.
Hume defines the laws of nature to be what has been “uniformly” observed by mankind, such as the laws of identity and gravity. He views society as being far to liberal in what they consider to be a miracle. He gives the reader four ideas to support his philosophy in defining a true miracle, or the belief in a miracle. These points leads us to believe that there has never been a miraculous event established. Hume’s first reason in contradicting a miracle is, in all of history there has not been a miraculous event with a sufficient number of witnesses. He questions the integrity of the men and the reputation in which they hold in society. If their reputation holds great integrity, then and only then can we have full assurance in the testimony of men. Hume is constantly asking throughout the passage questions to support proof for a miracle. He asks questions such as this; Who is qualified? Who has...
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.
The movie Glory is the story of the first African American military unit which fought during the Civil War. This powerful story is told through the eyes of the unit’s leader, Colonel Robert Shaw. The director, Edward Zwick, uses a number of important scenes expressing growth, patriotism and leadership. Whenever there was an obstacle that the 54th regiment needed to overcome faith seemed to be the answer. Faith in their fellow man, faith in their country and faith in God.
The strength of the skeptical argument lies in the fact that it can not be
How does one find the miraculous in the common? Associated with spontaneous wonders, miraculous is far from the ordinary. This is a sound comparison, although Transcendentalist poet Ralph Waldo Emerson would call the previous statement a fallacy. This is due to his belief of finding the miraculous in the common as “the invariable mark of wisdom”. Emerson along with Henry David Thoreau and Annie Dillard all answered in regards to finding such miracles. These three authors have displayed their reasoning in their popular works.
forgiven, so there is no need to ‘force’ yourself to believe. This argument is far from proving the existence of God, it argues more for. the purpose of believing in him rather than whether he actually exists. The.. In conclusion, all the arguments bar one that have been covered have. been strongly criticised, questioning their validity.
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.
The Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan tells the story of Christian, a deeply religious man whose self-imposed pilgrimage takes him through a variety of locations in his quest to reach Celestial City. However, to better understand Bunyan's perspective on Christianity as given in his novel, we must examine the life experiences of the author. Born in 1628, Bunyan lived in a time period that was undoubtedly heavily influenced by the Reformation movement incited by Martin Luther only a century earlier. The lives of Luther and Bunyan parallel in that both disagreed with fundamental doctrines applied by the Church in their lifetime. Additionally, both were labeled as dissenters and subsequently persecuted for adhering to their own principles (Bunyan, Introduction pg. XVII). Perhaps the most striking similarity was their common belief in the theological teaching of justification by faith, and the role, or lack thereof, of works in acquiring salvation (Perry, Peden, Von Laue, pgs. 18-19). The concept of justification by faith and the zero sum value of works as taught by Luther is the central theme of the novel The Pilgrim's Progress and the basic position concerning Christianity that Bunyan conveys to the reader. Three examples of this position contained within the novel include Christian's opinion of morality and legality as a result of his encounter with Mr. Worldly-Wiseman, Christian's definition of hypocrisy and the subsequent demise of By-ends, and finally the refusal of admittance to the Celestial City for Ignorance, despite his works.
In Edward Taylor’s Preface to God’s Determination, Taylor’s lyrical depiction of God’s creation describes God’s supernatural creation of the universe. Through the poem Taylor asks questions to stir the imagination of the audience and make them wonder how such a complex and magnificent world could be derived from nothing. In the conclusion he states that only by God’s infinite power could such a marvelous creation be derived.
Pope John Paul II once said, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth – in a word, to know himself – so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.” (Fallible Blogma) Based on this significant and powerful quote, one can infer that faith and reason are directly associated and related. It can also be implied that the combination of faith and reason allows one to seek information and knowledge about truth and God; based on various class discussions and past academic teachings, it is understood that both faith and reason are the instruments that diverse parties are supposed to use on this search for truth and God. There are many stances and viewpoints on the issues of faith and reason. Some believe that both of these ideas cannot and should not be combined; these parties deem that faith and reason must be taken as merely separate entities. However, this writer does not understand why both entities cannot be combined; both terms are so closely compatible that it would make sense to combine the two for a common task. Based on various class discussions and readings, there are many philosophers and theologians who have certain opinions regarding faith, reason and their compatibility; these philosophers include Hildegard of Bingen, Ibn Rushd, Moses Maimonides, and St. Thomas Aquinas. The following essay will examine each of the previously stated philosopher’s viewpoints on faith and reason, and will essentially try to determine whether or not faith and reason are ultimately one in the same.
The Bible and the written laws of nature are like two different books. These books are written and read in completely different languages. The Bible was written in the view of people of that time; whereas, science laws are constantly written and changed for modern world. Therefore, there always will be some controversy between two thoughts. There are still many unknown things in the world that science is yet to find out. Christianity on the other hand accepts extraordinary occurrences and prevents science from explaining things that it cannot. Christianity is needed to explain unbelievable phenomena that are part of our daily life.
Many atheists have used science as a way to disapprove the existence of God. Science is not an accurate way of disapproving the existence of God(2). Scient...
While some people may believe that science and religion differ drastically, science and religion both require reason and faith respectively. Religion uses reason as a way of learning and growing in one’s faith. Science, on the other hand, uses reason to provide facts and explain different hypotheses. Both, though, use reason for evidence as a way of gaining more knowledge about the subject. Although science tends to favor more “natural” views of the world, religion and science fundamentally need reason and faith to obtain more knowledge about their various subjects. In looking at science and religion, the similarities and differences in faith and reason can be seen.
In many aspects of our lives, the use of faith as a basis for knowledge can be found. Whether it is faith in the advice of your teacher, faith in a God or faith in a scientific theory, it is present. But what is faith? A definition of faith in a theory of knowledge context is the confident belief or trust in a knowledge claim by a knower, without the knower having conclusive evidence. This is because if a knowledge claim is backed up by evidence, then we would use reason rather than faith as a basis for knowledge . If we define knowledge as ‘justified true belief’, it can be seen that faith, being without justification, can never fulfill this definition, and so cannot be used as a reliable basis for knowledge. However, the question arises, what if a certain knowledge claim lies outside of the realm of reason? What if a knowledge claim cannot be justified by empirical evidence and reasoning alone, such as a religious knowledge claim? It is then that faith allows the knower to decide what is knowledge and what is not, when something cannot be definitively proved through the use of evidence. When assessing faith as a basis for knowledge in the natural sciences, the fact arises that without faith in the research done before us, it is impossible to develop further knowledge on top of it. Yet at the same time, if we have unwavering faith in existing theories, they would never be challenged, and so our progress of knowledge in the natural sciences would come to a standstill. Although I intend to approach this essay in a balanced manner, this essay may be subject to a small degree of bias, due to my own non-religious viewpoint.
I was unsure of what Faith and Reason were; I say that, because Faith and Reason seem to have the illusion of spiritual meanings and concepts, thus I could not accept the idea that a course of this nature would be taught in college. For me Faith and Reason express a person’s ideals, beliefs and theories on life. According to Webster’s Dictionary, faith and reason are defined as; faith being a belief and trust in and loyalty to God; fanciful or empty assumption. The images that we have come to express are not far from what the rest of the world has expressed or defined. As you continue to read my theories and ideas on the issue of Faith and Reason, you may come to understand the type of person that I am, and possibly understand how and why I believe as I do.