54 J.J.C. Smart
Need the concept of a miracle involve that of a violation of the laws of
nature? Not always, because the notion of a miracle, as with other non-trivial
concepts, has what Friedrich Waismann has called ‘open texture’.^91 I think
that it would be perfectly proper to give the name ‘miracle’ to a religiously
significant and unusual event, such as the parting of the Red Sea which
allowed the Israelites fleeing from Egypt to pass through, even though the
event could be given a naturalistic explanation. The term ‘miracle’ would be
even more appropriate if it were claimed that God had set up the universe to
contain the event, even though it occurred in accordance with deterministic
laws.^92 Similarly God might have set up the universe so that the event occurred
indeterministically but without violating quantum mechanical laws.
Even so, if the event was naturalistically possible but very improbable we
might be justified in doubting the truth of the report of it. Its very signific-
ance in a religious context might increase the probability that this highly
improbable event never occurred, and that the report of it was fictional, part
of a story told (and even believed by its narrator) in a more credulous age. It
is indeed often foolish to believe one’s own eyes, as is shown by the existence
of clever conjurors. In fact the existence of conjurors illustrates the fact that
things can often occur in a natural way, even though we have no idea how
they occurred.
Here we are obviously passing from the topic of the conception of the
miraculous to that of the assessment of testimony, and thus to questions in
the philosophy of history, and in particular to that of the higher criticism of
the New Testament. Historical evidence of course goes beyond documents
and verbal reports: we must also consider relevant archaeological information
and other evidence, such as from astronomy.^93
12 Higher Criticism of the New Testament
This section is particularly concerned with the Christian form of theism.
Adherents of Judaism and Islam would claim that they have the purest
form of monotheism because of Christianity’s difficult notion of the Trinity.
Like Christians, however, they are people of a Sacred Book and questions
in the philosophy of history and of testimony in general, which have arisen in
the higher criticism of the New Testament, may have some applications
in the study of these other religions. I shall not investigate this further matter
here.
Certainly many Christians believe in God and the divinity of Jesus because
they believe in the literal truth of the Old and New Testaments. It also works
the other way (often in the same people): people believe in the historical truth
of much at least of the New Testament because they believe in God and his