Skip to main content
Log in

Aquinas’s Miracles and the Luciferous Defence: The Problem of the Evil/Miracle Ratio

  • Published:
Sophia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Miracles and the problem of evil are two prominent areas of research within philosophy of religion. On occasion these areas converge, with God’s goodness being brought into question by the claim that either there is a lack of miracles, or there are immoral miracles. In this paper I shall highlight a second manner in which miracles and the problem of evil relate. Namely, I shall give reason as to why what is considered to be miraculous may be dependent upon a particular response to the problem of natural evil. To establish this claim, I shall focus upon Aquinas’s definition of a miracle and a particular free-will defence, the Luciferous defence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. On this occasion we need only concern ourselves with the response’s formulation as a free-will defence (which is offered as a solution to the logical problem of evil). However, the reply can also be formulated as a free-will theodicy (which is offered as a solution to the evidential problem of evil).

  2. Swinburne, The Existence of God, p.238.

  3. Matthew 17:24–27 (given a literal interpretation).

  4. Aquinas distinguishes between two types of circumstantially supernatural miracle: those which nature can cause in a particular order, but such an order is not present (such as living after death), and those which nature can cause given a sufficient duration of time, but such a time has not passed (such as recovering from a heavy fever in a second).

  5. Exodus 7:11, 7:22, 8:7; Matthew 24:24; Revelation 13:14, 16:14.

  6. My thanks to Daniel Cohen, Graeme Mclean, Peter Forrest, Nick Trakakis and Sarah Bachelard for their comments on this paper.

References

  • Basinger, D. (1984). Miracles as Violations: Some Clarifications. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 22, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, G. A. (2001). Satan and the Problem of Evil. New York: Intervarsity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, J. (1947). The Thomistic Philosophy of the Angels. Washington, D.C: Catholic University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, B. (1993). An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, S. T. (1981). Free Will and Evil. In S. Davis (Ed.), Encountering Evil, pp. 73–107. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietl, P. (1968). On Miracles. American Philosophical Quarterly, 5, 130–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flew, A. (1967). Miracles. In P. Edwards (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Philosophy vol. 5, pp. 346–53. New York: Macmillan and Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geisler, N. (1990). When Skeptics Ask. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hebblethwaite, B. (1976). Evil, Suffering and Religion. New York: Hawthorn Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, C. (1992). Miracles, Laws of Nature and Causation. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, supplementary volume 66, 179–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume, D. (1975). Of Miracles. In L. A. Selby-Bigge (Ed.), Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, pp. 114–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. (1995). A Moral Argument Against Miracles. Faith and Philosophy, 12, 54–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E., & Keller, M.-L. (1984). Miracles in Dispute: A Continuing Debate. London: SCM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larmer, R. (1996). Questions of Miracle. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

  • Larmer, R. (1998). Water into Wine?: An Investigation of the Concept of Miracle. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, C. S. (1940). The Problem of Pain. London: Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luck, M. (2007). Supernatural Miracles and Religious Inclusiveness. Sophia, 46, 287–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie, D. (1999). Miracles Are Not Immoral: A Response to James Keller’s Moral Argument Against Miracles. Religious Studies, 35, 73–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overall, C. (1996). Miracles as Evidence Against the Existence of God. In R. Larmer (Ed.), Questions of Miracle, pp. 132–139. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plantinga, A. (1977). God, Freedom, and Evil. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purtill, R. L. (1997). Defining Miracles. In R. Douglas Geivett & G. R. Habermas (Eds.), In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case For God’s Action in History, pp. 61–72. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swinburne, R. (1970). The Concept of Miracle. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swinburne, R. (2004). The Existence of God. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vardy, P. (1992). The Puzzle of Evil. London: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, K. (2002). Believing in Miracles. Zygon, 37, 741–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiles, M. (1986). God’s Action in the World. London: SCM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, R. (1972). Miracles and Epistemology. Religious Studies, 8, 115–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Morgan Luck.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Luck, M. Aquinas’s Miracles and the Luciferous Defence: The Problem of the Evil/Miracle Ratio. SOPHIA 48, 167–177 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-009-0100-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-009-0100-0

Keywords

Navigation