anti-realist

• what is the anti-realist view?

  the stance that miracles are an interpretation of the mind. they may be seen as symbols or as something that lifts the spirit/ transforms a community
• what do anti-realist understandings deny?

  that we can have knowledge of a mind-independent world
• why do anti-realist understandings deny that we can have knowledge of a mind-independent world?

  since the phenomena observed by our senses are interpreted by the mind (subjective)
• any talk of God as an unobservable "something" has no cognitive content so...?


  God cannot be discussed meaningfully
• what is not a sensible idea?

  the idea of miraculous intervention in this world by a transcendent God
• why is the idea of miraculous intervention in this world by a transcendent God not a sensible idea?

  because we can have no knowledge of a transcendent realm
• instead, what are miracles?

  "in the mind" - they're mental states
• what do anti-realists focus on?

  the state of mind, rather than the event itself
• what might a miracle be seen as?

  something that lifts the spirit or transforms lives
• when an anti-realist talks about miracles, what are they doing?

  informing us about their state of mind, they are NOT making a claim about the event itself
• what does Tillich say that miracles are?

  sign-events
• Tillich holds the view that religious language is what?


  symbolic
• Tllich does not see God as " a being" instead, what does he see him as?

  God is the "being-itself" (existence itself)
• on miracles, he doest understand them in the realist terms (interventions) instead...?

  miracles are "sign-events" that cannot be divorced from their religious context
• what does Tillich define a miracle as?

  "an event which is astonishing, unusual, shaking, without contradicting the rational structure of reality"
• what does this mean?

  it doesn't violate the natural law
• in order to be considered a miracle, what does the event have to be?

  astonishing, without breaking any laws of nature
• what must it point to?

  the mystery of being and also be a sign/symbol within a religious experience
• Keith Ward supports Tillich, what does he say miracles are?


  "epiphanies of spirit"
• what does Ward believe we should focus on?

  the "subjective element of the apprehension of a miracle, rather than the objective nature of the event itself"
• what does anti-realism focus on?

  you, and what the impact is on you
• miracles have to conform to the laws of nature, finish the quote that Ward says about Tillich, "Tillich wishes to...?

  keep the seamless, causal robe of nature intact"
• what else does Ward say?

  "the robe remains intact; the miracle is mainly in my mind"
• what does Hick say a miracle is?

  any event that is experienced as a miracle (emphasises that they're interpretations)
• he also says it is an event which we become...?

  vividly and immediately conscious of God acting towards us
• in order to be miraculous, what must an event be experienced as?

  religiously significant (its all about personal understanding)
• what does R.F Holland say that miracles have?

  meaning within forms of life
• what is a direct quote from R.F Holland?

  "a coincidence can be taken religiously as a sign and called a miracle"
• for example...?

  a Christian may interpret a beneficial coincidence in a religious way, as the result of divine intervention
• what does Holland argue?

  that there is actually nothing miraculous about these coincidences, but that we interpret them in this way, based on our beliefs
• what example does Holland use to support his belief?

  a child who is riding a toy car when it strays onto an unguarded railway crossing
• explain the example:

  a wheel of the childs car gets stuck down the side of one of the rails, a train is due to pass and a curve in the track makes it impossible for the driver to stop in time to avoid any obstructions
• what happens when the mother comes out of the house and sees him and starts shouting and waving?

  the train is coming but the boy remains seated in his car, trying to pedal it free, however, the brakes of the train are applied and it stops a few feet from the child, leaving him unharmed
• what does the mother then do?

  she thanks God for the miracle
• however, how did R.F. Holland explain that this wasn't in fact a miracle?

  the driver had fainted for a reason that had nothing to do with the child, so the brakes had already automatically been applied minutes before he would've even seen the child on the tracks
• why, according to Holland, would it be a confusion to understand this event as a miracle?

  what makes it miraculous for the mother is that it is a beneficial coincidence which she interprets in a religious fashion
• the mother already believes in God so...?

  her understanding of the event makes sense within the context of her religious life
• (critical analysis of anti-realist views) when theists speak of miracles...?


  are they talking about "interpretations" or real events?
• how else is the train journey not a miracle?

  the driver had fainted because of a blood clot that reached his brain, would his relatives really consider that a miracle?
• what is the problem with any anti-realist interpretations?

  they will vary according to the values, hopes and intentions of the people concerned