Epistemic theory of miracles
The epistemic theory of miracles is the name given by the philosopher
The name of the theory is derived from the Ancient Greek word ἐπιστήμη, episteme, meaning "well-founded knowledge".
Augustine's account
In
- There occurred a remarkable celestial Dion of Naples, famous mathematicians, said that this occurred in the reign of Ogyges.
- So great an author as Varro would certainly not have called this a portent had it not seemed to be contrary to nature. For we say that all portents are contrary to nature; but they are not so. For how is that contrary to nature which happens by the will of God, since the will of so mighty a Creator is certainly the nature of each created thing? A portent, therefore, happens not contrary to nature, but contrary to what we know as nature.[1]
Augustine argues that there can be no true transgression of the laws of nature, because everything that happens according to God's will happens by nature, and a transgression of the laws of nature would therefore happen contrary to God's will. A miracle therefore is not contrary to nature as it really is, but only contrary to nature as our current understanding supposes it to be (Portentum ergo fit non contra naturam, sed contra quam est nota natura).
Spinoza's account
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Spinoza.jpg/200px-Spinoza.jpg)
In Chapter Six of
- Further, as nothing happens in nature which does not follow from her laws, and as her laws embrace everything conceived by the Divine intellect, and lastly, as nature preserves a fixed and immutable order; it most clearly follows that miracles are only intelligible as in relation to human opinions, and merely mean events of which the natural cause cannot be explained by a reference to any ordinary occurrence, either by us, or at any rate, by the writer and narrator of the miracle.[3]
In other words, according to Spinoza, miracles are not a transgression of natural or scientific laws, but only of natural laws as we currently understand them. A "miracle" is simply an event we cannot explain, and is parasitic upon our ignorance. It is, in reality, a natural event that surpasses our limited human comprehension. To a perfect understanding nothing would appear miraculous. This is the first main point that Spinoza makes in his chapter "Of Miracles."
His second point is that neither God's nature, nor his existence can be known from miracles; they can be known only from the fixed and immutable order of nature. If we understand miracles as actual interruptions or contraventions of the order of nature, and so of the will of God, then not only are they impossible, but they can provide no basis for knowledge of God. However, if understanding miracles epistemically, i.e. as events the causes of which we do not understand, then we have no basis for knowledge of God in this case either. We cannot base knowledge of God on ignorance, and events are miraculous only due to our ignorance of their natural causes.
- If, therefore, anything should come to pass in nature which does not follow from her laws, it would also be in contravention to the order which God has established in nature for ever through universal natural laws; it would, therefore, be in contravention to God's nature and laws, and, consequently, belief in it would throw doubt upon everything, and lead to Atheism.[2]
John Polkinghorne
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Kochendes_wasser02.jpg/200px-Kochendes_wasser02.jpg)
The view of
- I try to understand God's action that we call miraculous in the same sort of way. There is an underlying consistency of God's relationship to the world but the existence of a new regime may mean that consistency expresses itself in totally unprecedented, totally unexpected consequences.[4]
Polkinghorne argues that God cannot control things on the macroscopic scale by acting microscopically on each elementary particle in the universe, but that He can act within the framework of
McLean v. Arkansas
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Inherit_the_wind_trailer_%281%29_Spencer_Tracy_Fredric_March.jpg/300px-Inherit_the_wind_trailer_%281%29_Spencer_Tracy_Fredric_March.jpg)
The epistemic conception of the miraculous does not agree with the definition given in the famous McLean v. Arkansas case. In this case (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 1258–1264) (ED Ark. 1982), brought in Arkansas, the judge, William Overton, gave a clear, specific definition of science as a basis for ruling that 'creation science' is religion and not science. His judgment defined the essential characteristics of science as being
- guided by natural law;
- explanatory by reference to natural law;
- empirically testable;
- tentative in conclusion, i.e. not necessarily the final word;
- falsifiable.
However, an epistemic explanation of miraculous events would satisfy at least the first two definitions. [citation needed]
Islamic view of miracles
The epistemic conception of the miraculous does not agree with the definition given in the work of the
- It must be performed by God
- "It must be contrary to the usual course of things"
- It should be impossible to contradict it
- "It must happen at the hands of him who claims to be an apostle"
- "It must be in conformity with his announcement of it, and the miracle itself must not be a disavowal of his claim"
- "It must follow on his claim"[6]
This contrasts with the epistemic theory, where a miracle is not contrary to the usual course of things (although it may be contrary to our current understanding).
Notes
References
- Augustine, The City of God, Book XXI, Chapter 8.
- Polkinghorne, J., God's Action in the World, 1990 J.K.Russell Fellowship Lecture.
- Polkinghorne, J., Belief in God in the Age of Science, New Haven and London: Yale University Press 1998.
- Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus.