Exemplar Script Exercise –
G581 Philosophy of Religion
(II)
2) Evaluate the claim that miracles lead to believe in a
God who favours some but not all of his creation. [35]
There are two definitions of the term ‘miracle’, a violation of natural laws
and an event which has religious significance. How you view God may be
determined by which definition of God you accept. The idea of a God who
favours some but not all his creation is common. It is important not only for
miracle but for questions such as predestination.
This is not quite as clear a start as the first answer but the examiner
is given the impression that the candidate is aware of some of the
issues in the question.
If miracles are violations of natural laws by the violation of a deity, as
Hume and Spinoza thought, questions naturally arise as to why, in
some circumstances, God chooses to push the boundaries of natural
laws to interfere in his creation. If it is possible for God to act as a
parent, as Richard Swinburne suggested, and ease the boundaries of
natural laws to interact with humanity, then we must consider the
circumstances in which such an immanent God might become
involved.
This is much better - the response is raising issues which are
well focused on the question and using a quality of language
often associated with the higher levels of response; which then
goes onto develop in a way which demonstrates real engagement
with the question.
Calvin’s idea of predestination suggests that some people are
God’s ‘elect’ and that, after death, these ‘elect’ will join God in
heaven. Some believers in predestination suggest that our actions
– whether as ‘elect’ or ‘damned’ – are predestined or decided by
God. This would mean that we had very little – if any – free will in
our decision or actions. This theory of predestination often leads
people to believe in a God ‘who favours some but not all of his
creation.’ Predestination would be intrinsically linked to miracles in
the sense that, regardless of what we do, God has already decided
whether he will interact or perform a miracle. Miracles are seen not
as short-term breaches of natural law but rather as the eternal
intention of God for the world. Religious believers of this type often
have a hard time understanding why miracles aren’t common
occurrences.
However, as Swinburne suggests, if miracles were a frequent
occurrence, people would live in confusion, constantly wondering
whether laws such as gravity would remain constant. Swinburne also
observes that if God were to interact frequently, then humans would
take less active roles in society and would, for example, be less likely
to find the cure for cancer.
Above, there are several signs which point to this being an
excellent essay. Firstly, again, the accurate use of technical
terms. Secondly the way the candidate uses the thoughts of
Calvin and Swinburne in an interactive way – not just writing out
what they say but recognising the importance of what they say to
the debate at issue and how their thoughts might be developed. It
is also worth noting that while I expected candidates to use the
writings of Wiles to engage with this question – this is an
excellent response where Wiles is not used until the end of the
response. In fact this could easily be an excellent response with
no mention of Wiles which is why we train examiners to look
beyond the mark scheme and assess the work as it is presented.
Another possible reason for miracles appearing to be sparse and
selective is hinted at in Irenaean theodicy, which suggests that people
suffer on earth and in life in order to help them grow and develop.
Without suffering or death, life would have little meaning because
there would be no real consequences to our actions. By allowing some
suffering and by only creating miracles at certain times, God enables
us to grow as people to reach an eventual happiness with him.
However, thinkers such as D.Z. Phillips resent this idea as it involves
the instrumental use of evil and God’s purposeful neglect of suffering.
Phillips believes that no amount of happiness in the afterlife justifies
pain and harm in this world.
Here we have an excellent account of one relevant issue which
has been addressed concisely and accurately. Again note the
way the response uses philosophical scholars to interact with the
issue while being very clear about the consequences of believing
the Irenaean Theodicy.
In the Old Testament, miracles are used to show God’s power over
illness, death and nature, to display his love and goodness and to
show his punishment of the wicked and rewarding of the righteous. In
Exodus, the story of Moses and the Israelites includes a number of
plagues, including the deaths of first-born sons, which God sends on
the Egyptian people, but not the Israelites. In this use of punishment it
is possible to see God favouring some of his creation but not others.
When Moses parts the Red Sea, God is actively involved. When he
drowns the Egyptian soldiers, this does not seem consistent with an
omnibenevolent God. However, the miracles of the New Testament
are different. These focus on the life of Jesus, with around 30 miracle
stories. Miracles in the New Testament are often split into two
categories, nature miracles and ‘curing’ miracles, whether exorcism or
from illness.
But interpretation of biblical miracles depends very much on whether
they are understood literally or metaphorically. For Rudolf Bultmann,
miracles should be viewed as symbols. Through their removal and
connected demythologisation of scripture, it is possible to reach the
true meaning of these accounts. Bultmann believed that once the
supernatural aspects of the New Testament were removed, we would
be left with the teachings (kerygma) of Jesus. It is this that the believer
should focus on, rather than the miracle stories, which he believed to
be later additions.
Here we have an excellent account of how miracles can be
considered to agree with the sentiment in the question;
importantly the response does not feel the need, often found in
weaker candidates, to write out the miracle stories themselves
but instead uses them to further the evaluation. Then it goes onto
to make good use of scholarship relevant to this area.
If a believer in miracles were to look at the symbolism behind the
miracles, rather than the acts themselves, it would certainly be
possible to retain belief in an omnipotent God who does not favour
some of his creation, as the miracles would not actually have
happened. But some thinkers would strongly dispute this interpretation
and suggest that a belief in miracles, especially the resurrection, is
essential, otherwise ‘all of our preaching and all of your faith would be
in vain.’ (I Corinthians).
Again, a concise evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of
Bultmann’s position.
The theologian Maurice Wiles disputed miracles on the grounds they
were arbitrary and partisan. Wiles believed it would be better to
believe in an all-good God who didn’t perform miracles rather than one
who chose to ignore those in greatest need. As a supporter of the
view that belief in miracles leads to a concept of God who favours
some but not others, Wiles commented that ‘even though miracles are
rare by nature, it seems strange that nothing prevented Auschwitz or
Hiroshima.’ Wiles then uses the example of Jesus turning water into
wine to save his host’s embarrassment to assert his belief that some
of the miracles in the New Testament appear to be whims of God.
With such suffering and pain in the world this seems unjust. Although
some theologians argued that Wiles was a deist rather than a theist,
his point remains valid and can be used to support the view of God’s
favouritism.
A good use of the Deist critique while still recognising the validly
of the point Wiles is trying to make.
If a believer in miracles were to adopt the definition of a miracle as an
event which holds religious significance, then it is possible to argue
against the notion that a belief in miracles suggests a God who
favours some but not all his creation. For someone who perceives
miracles to be events which have religious significance, it is possible
to argue that God plays no direct role in the event but it is the
experiencer’s faith which leads him to believe that it was caused by
God. R.F. Holland used the analogy of a boy playing on train tracks to
explain this point. A boy was playing on the tracks and a train was
coming round a bend, unable to stop. The train’s driver had collapsed,
releasing the dead man’s handle. The boy’s mother perceived this to
be a miracle, although the events were the consequence of natural
events. God may have had nothing to do with the boy’s survival,
shown no favouritism or decided to save the boy while the driver
suffered. If a believer in miracles held this view, believing that in some
cases it is all a matter of how an experiencer interprets the miracle,
then a belief in an omnibenevolent and fair God would still be possible.
The criticisms by Maurice Wiles, as well as theories of predestination,
show how it is possible to think of a God who has favourites, but
things can be understood differently. It is a matter of interpretation. A
symbolic interpretation, such as that of Wiles, can lead to the concept
of a God who advocates peace and true equality.
This is of those responses where I would say at a
standardisation meeting what more would you want in
45 minutes to give a candidate full marks? I am not
suggesting that others things could have been said,
only that in 45 minutes this has to be considered a
very full answer demonstrating a sound
understanding of relevant scholarship and engaging
fully with the question.