Maurice Wiles rejects the idea of an interventionist God that created the universe. He does not reject it on the grounds of logic or science and he doesn’t see anything logically wrong with the idea that God could choose whether he wanted create miracles or not, but rather he rejected them from a moral perspective. The one miracle Wiles believes in is that God created and is sustaining the world, but he does not intervene in single acts.
Wiles defines miracles as “the primary usage for the idea of divine action should be in relation to the world as a whole rather than to a particular occurrence within it”. His definition differs from that of David Hume (1711-1776): “A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature by a particular volition of the deity” Hume states that they are a direct act from God and Wiles quite clearly rejects this due to his disbelief in the interventionist God.
Wiles did not argue on the basis of science and rationality as Hume had argued: ‘the notion of a miracle cannot simply be ruled out on scientific grounds as logically impossible, since the world we know is not a closed deterministically ordered system”. Instead Wiles argued on the basis of morality and Wiles’ …show more content…
Wiles states that the incarnation can be explained without breaking natural laws because it is not an act of God. Wiles says that it is “perfection of human response to God” and the full humanity to Jesus is central. Jesus fully responded totally to God’s grace and in doing so, incarnated God in the world and so Wiles is saying that Jesus was not actually God and the incarnation becomes nothing more than human example of following God rather than God in human form. John Polkingthorne rejects Wiles and he states that if the interventionist God does not exist then prayer becomes meaningless. Polkingthorne also contends that many Christian scientists have not yet rejected the possibility that God acts in the
Wiles defines miracles as “the primary usage for the idea of divine action should be in relation to the world as a whole rather than to a particular occurrence within it”. His definition differs from that of David Hume (1711-1776): “A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature by a particular volition of the deity” Hume states that they are a direct act from God and Wiles quite clearly rejects this due to his disbelief in the interventionist God.
Wiles did not argue on the basis of science and rationality as Hume had argued: ‘the notion of a miracle cannot simply be ruled out on scientific grounds as logically impossible, since the world we know is not a closed deterministically ordered system”. Instead Wiles argued on the basis of morality and Wiles’ …show more content…
Wiles states that the incarnation can be explained without breaking natural laws because it is not an act of God. Wiles says that it is “perfection of human response to God” and the full humanity to Jesus is central. Jesus fully responded totally to God’s grace and in doing so, incarnated God in the world and so Wiles is saying that Jesus was not actually God and the incarnation becomes nothing more than human example of following God rather than God in human form. John Polkingthorne rejects Wiles and he states that if the interventionist God does not exist then prayer becomes meaningless. Polkingthorne also contends that many Christian scientists have not yet rejected the possibility that God acts in the