Mutazilite Ghazi Abduljabbar and Contemporary Christian Philosophers of Religion on the Possibility of Miracle

• Main Authors: Mohammad Saeeidimehr, Abbas Dehghaninezhad
• Format: Article
• Language: fas
• Published: University of Isfahan 2013-12-01
• Series: Comparative Theology
• Online Access: http://coth.ui.ac.ir/article_15738_c692c74237a5f31e0c871298c9800aea.pdf

Most of western thinkers have declared miracle a self-contradicting and inconsistent notion. Christian theologians have made some efforts to reject this claim and demonstrate the consistency of miracle but it seems they have not succeeded to accomplish much in this regard and failed to substantiate the conceptual coherence of miracle.       We seek to show that the definition Ghazi Abduljabbar offers of miracle tackles this difficulty. In our view this issue indicates the upper hand of Moslem theologians in defining miracles as compared to their Christian counterparts. Problem Stated Swinburne articulates the difficulty as follows: "The first is that evidence that a particular event E occurred and that it is a violation of a supposed law of nature L really only tends to show, not that a law of nature has been violated, but that we have misstated the law of nature. the real law of nature is not really L but some other law L  which allows the occurrence of E… This view amounts to the view that it is logically impossible that there be a violation of a law of nature" (Swinburne, The concept of miracle, p. 19).       To tackle this objection, contemporary western thinkers have sought to demonstrate the consistency of miracle as a concept. Among others, the ideas of L. J. Mackie and Richard Swinburne in this regard are more renowned and hereby we turn to them. Makie's Solution Mackie defines a miracle to be a super natural intervention into the natural world: '... we can give a coherent definition of a miracle. As a supernatural intrusion into the normally closed system that works in accordance with those law. Mackie then defines a miracle to be a super natural intervention into the natural world: '... we can give a coherent definition of a miracle as a supernatural intrusion into the normally closed system that works in Accordance with those laws… (Mackie, p: 21) tem that works in This does not mean the law is false; it only means the world behaved differently than it would have if there were no outside interference with it (Otte, p: 152). Swinburne's solution To solve this problem, Swinburne offer a new version of "law of nature ". Accordingly, we can have some universal laws in nature that are exceptional i.e. only some of exception can violate these laws that are repeatable. But if there is non-repeatable case, we cannot assume it as a violation of law of nature but only an exception. (See: Swinburne, The concept of miracle, p: 26) Criticism of Swinburne and Mackie The main objection has been brought up by Everitt. He explains that the concept of "violation of law" is logically and physically impossible (See: Everitt, The none existence of God, p: 118). He regards Mackie and Swinburne's efforts to demonstrate the conceptual coherence of miracle as utter failure, because their modified definition of "law of nature" the violation is no more violation as it is supposed to be by definition. This is why law of nature as conceived by Swinburne is that "all A except some that are not repeatable, are B. "Swinburne's account secures the possible truth of such claims as 'There is an A which is not B' but only at the cost of making it impossible for them to violate laws of nature" (Everitt, “The impossibility of miracle”, p. 349). This is also true with Mackie's argument since according to his view, law of nature is like this:" All As are Bs unless God intervenes to make an A which is not a B’"(Everitt, The none existence of God, p: 119). Though Mackie has tried to show the conceptual coherence of miracle but given the latter definition we can no longer see divine interference in this world as a miracle and violation of law as it is an extension of law itself (See: ibid). Larmer traces this problem back to the definition of miracle as the violation of law of nature (Larmer, p: 36-37). Ghazi Abduljabbar's Definition of Miracle The trouble caused by defining miracle as "violation of law of nature" seems could be avoided by the definition which is offered by Ghazi Abduljabbar. According to Abduljabbar's definition of miracle, "habit breaking" represents the very essence of miracle. He insists on the necessity of knowledge of habits as it helps us to fathom what does it exactly mean to break a habit? (Abduljabbar, vol. 15, p. 152). To understand habit breaking, Abduljabbar argues, we need to recognize four factors embedded in habit. These quadruple factors comprise time, place, agent and habitual attributes. Time in this context covers all portions of time except the dawn of creation, resurrection and the time when obligations wear off (ibid: 182).       The place of habit has to be determined too. Since habits differ from one place to another and no one can ever declare an event occurred in place A the violation of an event happened in place B. Rather in habit the place should be considered unchanging (ibid: 183).      But who is the agent of habit? To state the matter otherwise, whose is the habit we should take into consideration in miracle and who is supposed to break that habit and make the miracle come true? Abduljabbar says it is the habits which are directly related with divine action or bear something related to it (ibid.) The fourth constitutive factor of habit is habitual attributes like changeability (ibid: 184) and temporal and numeral neutrality in terms of quantity (ibid: 187-188). In fact, Abduljabbar like the majority of Moslem theologians has regarded miracle an action which has been done by God within which a habit comes to be broken. Of course this habit break is not in contradiction with causality rather it is in harmony with it. In other words, divine habit is that worldly affairs to get done within the framework of causes. God has chosen this process for the accomplishment of worldly affairs. Thus there is no occasion for the paradox spurred by defining miracle as "violation of law of nature" as it is seen in Abduljabbar's analysis of this notion.