Hume attempted to prove the fallibility of miracles through a twofold attack, by firstly attempting to show that it is irrational to believe that a miracle can happen, and that we should not believe the testimony of those who claim to have experienced miracles. Hume focuses on transgression of the laws of nature to be his definition of a miracle and claims that belief in miracles is self-contradictory and irrational as it is irrational to believe in the transgression or violation of any natural law. Thus, it seems that the miracles, according to this definition, are not possible as natural laws are unalterable and cannot be defied.
Huxley and McKinnon argue that if a miracle was to occur, such as Huxley’s example of suspension of a piece of lead in the air, we should not hold that the natural laws have been violated, but rather our knowledge of natural laws is incomplete. McKinnon further develops Huxley’s argument and holds that when one claims a miracle such as ‘water supported the weight of a man’, two contradictory things are being claimed; that water cannot support the weight of a man, but at this particular time water did support the weight of a man. McKinnon goes on to state that a counter instance of a statement disproves the statement, so if the event occurred then it disproves the natural law ‘water cannot support the weight of man’. McKinnon concludes by stating that our laws of nature need to be closely examined. So, defining miracles as transgressions of laws of nature is useful as it helps us to find more accurate laws of nature.
Nonetheless, there is great criticism of Hume’s view on miracles, as it is evident that Hume uses his definition of a miracle to rule out the possibility of a miracle. Furthermore, Hume’s argument is based on induction, which weighs up the evidence, which by definition rules out the possibility of miracles as there will always be greater evidence against them. Thus, it seems as if Hume’s inductive project has essentially constructed the implausibility of miracles. Thus, Hume’s definition of miracles is not useful for those wishing to use miracles as evidence. The miracle of Jesus’ resurrection, that the Christian faith is based on, for example, is a case in point.
The scientific and religious accounts of creation seem incompatible on the surface but we need to look deeper to see if they really are.
Of course religious and (scientific) fundamentalists could never accept that a blend or XXX of these two apparently opposing viewpoints could by possible. Religious fundamentalists fear that science is trying to do away with God and that Heaven and Hell are utterly real and that 6 days means just that. While scientific fundamentalists feel that to speculate that a God might have created the universe through the mechanism of the ‘Big Bang’ and that evolution equally might merely be another device God has used to realise human potential is to compromise the very rationality upon with science is based.
However, fortunately, these close-minded folk are, today, in the minority and many on both sides of the divide can see the differences as well as the similarities between the two. Indeed many famous Christian philosophers have seen that the two can go hand in hand. Teilhard de Chardin said “All roads to the truth lead to one God” and St. Anselm believed that reasoned argument can strengthen faith though it is no substitute for true commitment to God. In fact in 1884 Archbishop Temple declared that it was “impossible for science to rule out that we might be made in God’s image“.
Scientists too have counted among there number many who have also been able to believe in a creator God: notably Einstein and Newton. Einstein believed that “science without religion is lame (While) religion without science is blind” – Perhaps partially a reference to the way Galileo’s scientific discoveries were greeted by the medieval church! While Isaac Newton was convinced of a “being, incorporeal, living, intelligent, omnipresent” by rational reflection on the orderliness of nature.
Perhaps we should let Francis Bacon have the final say: “We have a book of God’s words (the Bible) and a book of God’s works (nature) (and) both should complement each other.”
Many scientists believe that the empirical evidence which they put forward has a higher authority than the religious theories of how the earth came into existence. All persons who put postulate reasons for the origin of the universe are concerned with the cosmology of the universe.
The big bang theory is supported by many scientists as it seems to be more realistic and although not all evidence has been said to be certain they believe it to be so as there are numerous pieces of evidence when compared to the Bible which is one of the only evident pieces for creationists. Peter Atkins has this opinion when considering the cosmology of the universe. He believes that science is absolute evidence and cannot be weakened by religious evidence as, in his opinion, religion play no part in the cosmos of the universe. Thus he is a big bang supporter. However his notion regarding the origin of the universe can be weakened by the nature of the religious arguments; religion is portrayed to explain both the how and the why of the universes’ cosmos whereas scientific arguments are only seen to explain the how. Many philosophers see this as a weakness of the empirical evidence as it does not provide humanity with satisfaction about the origin of the universe; thus is can be seen to be incomplete. But, it is important to note that when evaluating the big bang theory, that a majority of society (especially the youth) see the big bang theory to be truthful and religion to be messages and not fact. Thus, Peter Atkins and people such alike who support the big bang theory will support this statement.
Furthermore, religious persons have many different views about the origin on the universe and cannot be categorised into one group of creationists. One category of creationists is the age-gap; they believe that the Bible describes the seven day creation story as days that are actually many millions of years, meaning that the world was not created in 7 days but millions of years. Age-gap creationists are liberalists that believe the word of the Bible to be messages not truth. They are more likely to accept empirical evidence than literalists or fundamentalists (Christians that believe the Bible to be the absolute word of God) as it can explain the theory behind the Bible. Although they believe that the big band theory to be incorrect they do have a scientific view on things; God created the world in millions of years as it was not scientifically possible to create it in 7 days. Scientists cannot fully weaken this argument without weakening their own regarding the age of the earth however one element that they could weaken is the ‘God’ factor. Scientists may say that God created the world but then walked away; similar to the Prime Mover that Aristotle portrayed. The strengths of this are that it explains the apparent cruelty and suffering in the universe which if God was to have the attribute of omnibenevolence, which he is commonly thought to be, he does not need to as he has no involvement in the universe today. However, many religious persons would disagree with this notion and thus that is a weakness. When evaluating the notion that is from the age-gap creationists many modern religious people will agree with it, and some concordant scientists such as John Polkinghorne who believe science and religion to be compatible, whereas some scientists and other creationists will criticise this argument due to the rejection of God being a personal being. But, age-gap creationists will disagree with this as science can be compatible with the religious notion that God is the creator.
NOMA is a religious grouping of different religious cultures that stand for non-overlapping magisterial; their aim is to keep religion and science in separate margins as they explain different things about the cosmos of the universe. For example science may explain how God made the universe but religion may explain the why God created it initially. This can be highly criticised by religion and science as some may not want them not explain different things as this suggest they both are equal. William Paley put forward the teleological argument for God’s existence as the design of the universe illustrated regularity and purpose; thus there must be an intelligent design capable of this. On the other hand. Charles Darwin put forward the notion of evolution to explain the complexity of the universe; through scientific means only. Both of these would disagree with NOMA as it essentially eliminates the competition of religion and science to provide a satisfactory explanation for humanity. When analysing NOMA, it can be seen as a way forward for humanity to find an answer for the cosmos of the universe however it can be weakened by the lack of support of the traditional scientists and religious groups that do not believe science and religion can complement each other.
In conclusion, many religious people will disagree with this statement as religion provides the how and the why but scientists will agree with the statement as empirical evidence can given a higher authority and a majority of society believe it. However I believe that neither are correct as we have been presented them both and neither satisfy humanity so I would agree with NOMA and the notion of concordonism; until science and religion work together we will never truly discover the answer regarding the cosmos of the earth. Thus I would disagree with the statement.