A philosopher on Hume's teaching that a miracle is a violation of nature

There is no doubt that if you say you met Jesus' 2000 year old mother in a vision and nobody else could see here that if that is not a violation of nature nothing else.  It being a violation does not mean you are going to call it that.

To hold that miracles are a violation of the law of nature and therefore impossible is answered in two ways according to PJ McGrath in page 136, Believing in God.  (Most in the Church would say the same thing as him.)
 
One reply is to say a miracle is not a violation of the law of nature. But this would be to say that a miracle is caused by some natural law we know nothing about so McGrath rejects this one. He says that it denies that miracles can be evidence for the truth of religion for if miracles are just inexplicable but natural then they are not supernatural or necessarily from God.

Science does not seek certainty though it would if it could.  God being all-powerful has the power to give us certainty.  Science acts as if he will not do that.  But God being his own person and the ruler of all denies you any right to assume he will not.  So science is implicitly saying, "God may do it the next moment but we assume he will not and so we deny him."  Effectively this is a denial of the existence of God.

 

 It seeks merely the reduction of uncertainty.  To argue that if gravity suddenly stops, it is not evidence that the law has failed but that another one has taken over raises problems for science.  If gravity stops you may not detect that the law is no longer in force.  If gravity stops you will not necessarily detect the law that has overruled it.  (Even if a law is identified where is it coming from?  It could be governed by one that will never be found.)

 Either way science is wrong to say, "Gravity is very unlikely to stop."  So assuming a law that cannot be tested overthrows what science is about.  If that is the case with an unknown or unexplainable natural law, it would be worse if we think there are supernatural laws or beings that can change nature.

What matters most about cases that might be called violations is not what they might be, but their appeal to invisible laws.
 
The other reply is to say that natural law allows for exceptions. PJ McGrath in Believing in God accepts this one not realising that it too is saying that a miracle is not a violation of nature and so the miracle could be caused by natural law as well. Also, we use natural laws to make exceptions to many natural laws. For example, when you put your umbrella up you are making an exception of the natural law that you will get wet in the rain.

The exceptions argument is only semantics.  If there is a problem with saying a law can take over from gravity, saying a law can break it, there is a problem with using the exceptions thing too.  Then you get "Gravity works except in Melbourne where somebody shot up into the air."  The exception is a law in its own right.
 
So, if a miracle is not against the laws of nature then it is natural and it is silly to call it a miracle. So it has to be supernatural in the sense that it breaks the law of nature and shows that there is a power that can do that. Trouble is, it then becomes silly for other reasons. You cannot win.