In Defense of Miracles

This edited volume presents a systematic philosophical defense of the rationality of belief in miracles, engaging directly with David Hume's influential skepticism and contemporary naturalistic critiques. The collection brings together leading Christian analytic philosophers to construct both negative arguments against anti-miracle positions and positive arguments for the coherence and credibility of miraculous claims.

The work opens by examining Hume's famous argument that testimony to miracles can never overcome the presumption against violations of natural law. Contributors analyze the logical structure of Hume's reasoning, identifying what they argue are fatal flaws in his probabilistic calculus and his understanding of background knowledge. They contend that Hume's argument proves too much, potentially undermining all historical knowledge based on testimony, and rests on question-begging assumptions about the uniformity of nature.

Central chapters develop positive philosophical frameworks for understanding miracles within a theistic worldview. Authors argue that if God exists, miracles are not only possible but rationally expectable under certain conditions. They examine the concept of natural law itself, proposing models that allow for divine action without contradiction. The volume addresses the relationship between miracles and scientific explanation, arguing that methodological naturalism in science need not entail metaphysical naturalism about reality as a whole.

The collection engages extensively with contemporary critics including Antony Flew, Michael Martin, and J.L. Mackie. Contributors respond to various skeptical arguments: that miracle claims are inherently improbable, that naturalistic explanations are always preferable, and that the diversity of miracle claims across religions undermines their credibility. The authors employ tools from probability theory, philosophy of science, and epistemology to construct their rebuttals.

A significant portion examines specific miracle claims, particularly New Testament miracles and the resurrection of Jesus. Contributors argue that when properly assessed using historical methods and inference to the best explanation, certain miracle claims meet reasonable epistemic standards. They address issues of historical methodology, the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and the evaluation of competing explanations.

The volume's significance lies in its comprehensive engagement with philosophical objections to miracles using the rigorous methods of analytic philosophy. It challenges the post-Enlightenment consensus that rational persons cannot believe in miracles, offering sophisticated arguments that supernatural explanations can sometimes provide the best account of historical evidence. The work has influenced subsequent debates about the relationship between science, philosophy, and religious belief.