Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peter Damian (old) (talk | contribs) at 11:51, 30 August 2008 (→Spinoza's account). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article is actively undergoing a major edit for a little while. To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed. This page was last edited at 11:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC) (16 years ago) – this estimate is cached, update. Please remove this template if this page hasn't been edited for a significant time. If you are the editor who added this template, please be sure to remove it or replace it with {{Under construction}} between editing sessions.

The Epistemic Theory of Miracles is the name given by the philosopher William Vallicella, to the theory of miraculous events given by St. Augustine and Spinoza. According to the theory, there are no events contrary to nature: there are no "transgressions" in Hume's sense, of the laws of nature. An event is a miracle only in the sense that it does not agree with our understanding of nature, or fit our picture of nature, or thwarts our expectations as to how the world should behave, etc. According to a perfect scientific understanding there would be no miracles at all.

Augustine's account

In The City of God, Book XXI, Chapter 8, Augustine quotes Marcus Varro, Of the Race of the Roman People:

There occurred a remarkable celestial portent; for Castor records that, in the brilliant star Venus, called Vesperugo by Plautus, and the lovely Hesperus by Homer, there occurred so strange a prodigy, that it changed its colour, size, form, course, which never appeared before nor since. Adrastus of Cyzicus, and 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. (Modern Library, p. 776, tr. Dods, emphasis added.)

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).

For example, if we were to see a man walking on water, and the man really were walking on water, that would not be possible given the laws of nature as we understand them. (The surface tension of water is not great enough to support a man's weight. But it is logically possible that our understanding of the laws of nature is incomplete, and that there are special psychophysical laws, unknown to us, that allow certain human beings possessing great powers of concentration to affect by force of will alone the surface tension of water. If that were so in the case of Jesus, there would be nothing truly miraculous about his walking on water.

Spinoza's account

In Chapter Six of Spinoza's Theologico-Political Treatise ("Of Miracles"), Spinoza claims that the universal laws of nature are decrees of God. Hence, any event happening in nature which contravened nature's universal laws, would necessarily also contravene the Divine decree, nature, and understanding; or if anyone asserted that God acted in contravention to the laws of nature, he, ipso facto, would be compelled to assert that God acted against His own nature -- an evident absurdity.

It follows from this that miracles are to be construed epistemically:

References

(tr. Elwes, Dover, p. 83)