Assess whether belief in miracles is rational (50 marks)

There are many arguments which argue that ‘belief in miracles’ is rational just as there are many arguments which argue it is not. This essay will argue that miracles are not rational. Although Hume gave a definition for miracles (which would lead us to believe he believes they’re rational) the definition itself is so well worded and water tight that it actually leaves little room for miracles to be seen as rational. For example, Hume said there are two factors which you need to look before you reach the decision to believe any given ‘miracle’. These two factors are reliability of the witness and the probability of what they’re saying to be true. With the first one, the reliability of the witness, Hume said that if you believe the witness to be honest and trust worthy then you are one step closer to saying that something is a miracle. However, if the witness is dishonest or has an ulterior motive then you cannot take their word to believe this miracle or not. Next is the question of probability. Hume states that is a witness says they saw something like a talking cow, it is more likely that the testimony is false, even if it’s said by a reliable witness. However, this causes a great problem because to be a miracle it has to be something that isn’t likely because if it was likely how could we call it an ‘extraordinary event’, ‘incapable of scientific or rational reasoning’. Hume’s factors therefore make miracles very unlikely or hard to exist if we use his factors to define them and so, ‘beliefs in miracles’ would not be rational.

However, some Christians may argue that miracles are rational. Some Christians say that, in a realist sense, God can and does act in the world occasionally while many see the sustention of the world as a continuing miracle. Although this could be the case, it could also be argued that with miracles, it is surely better to argue for them outside of religion. If you are looking at miracles within religion, is it not agreeable to say that ration is put aside and so if you are to except miracles by looking at them with religious specs on, rationale is put to one side? On top off this, there are competing religions in society and each religion seeks to prove their religion through the existence of miracles but how can these coexist to prove each individual religion. For example, Jesus rising from the dead as one religious ‘miracle’ in Christianity or the Hindu deity which ‘drank’ milk when presented to it. This surely makes the belief in miracles seem
irrational. If all miracles are true then why would they exist within different religions and not just within society as a whole? Of course, the exact nature of miracles makes them irrational in coexisting the existence of God. This is because miracles require God to intervene in the world which means that he cannot be transcendent. Also if he was immanent rather than transcendent then why would he break the rule sometimes and not other times. If he was truly an omnibenevolent God then surely he would want to help all the time rather than just some. This makes miracles irrational because they cannot coincide at the same time. Overall, miracles appear irrational because they contradict not only other elements of the religion but also whole other religions themselves.