Godspell, thank you. It seems you lean towards the improbability (rather than strict impossibility) of miracles.
I’m of the opinion that the unlikeliness of bona fide miracles is such that the infinitesimal probabilities of occurrence asymptotically approach the limit of impossibility (strictly zero probability). At a practical level, indistinguishable from impossibility – similar to (how I understood) Godspell’s opening line. I’d also be willing to grant that they are probably impossible. But any claim of strict impossibility is to help oneself to an unwarranted level of certainty about how the nature of reality works at a fundamental level.
I remain very curious to understand better how it is that this epistemological position (broadly) licenses other people to believe anything they want. And how my acknowledgment of these epistemic limitations give rise to me missing some moral imperative to deny these limitations.
I think you need to evaluate miracle claims on a case by case basis
the question “Do you believe in miracles?” is too way to broad
the two miracle claims that are most curious to me are
I am paraphrasing them
1. Jesus first (?) visit to Peter’s house where his mother in law has been sick, Jesus says something to her then she gets up and serves them.
2. Jesus and his disciples crossing Sea of Galilee during a life threatening storm, disciples are afraid they will drown, Jesus says something (to his disciples to trust in God (probably not talking to wind)) and then the storm abates and they are safe.
I don’t have any qualms believing in those ‘miracle’ stories
and if Gospel writers attribute mother’s recovery or disciples safety to God, grace who am I to say differently
Do you think miracles such as these did not happen because:
A) miracles are improbable, or
B) miracles are impossible?
I take a slightly different tack. I don’t believe in miracles because I think the concept is incoherent. Everyone seems to assume we all agree on the definition of a “miracle”, an event that contradicts what we know of natural processes. But the problem is how would you ever be able to distinguish between an event that is “supernatural” and an event that is caused by natural processes we just don’t understand yet? Quoting Arthur C Clarke is spot on. Even the biggie – raising someone from the dead – can we really say this will forever be beyond our technology simply because we don’t know how to do it now? What about a civilization a million years ahead of us?
To me the concept of a “miracle” is impossible to define. Supernatural? What does that even mean? We don’t have any evidence that anything outside the natural even exists. Lots of theological concepts are word salad. And this from a guy who spent two years at a seminary.
Stephen – well said.
I’ve made the simplifying, conversational assumption that it makes enough sense when we talk about that definition of miracle.
Would placing a temporal limitation on the definition bring the concept closer to a provisional coherence in your mind? I.e., an event that appears to defy all current explanation (including by not limited to all currently understood laws of the universe as well as reasonable extrapolations thereof)?
Cheers!
We don’t always disagree, you and I.
However, there is no getting away from one undeniable fact–people have believed in events that can’t be explained away in any concrete fashion for as long as there have been people. That’s never going away. So neither is the concept of miracles, incoherent as it unquestionably is. Incoherent concepts are not exclusively restricted to theists, either (read Karl Popper about the logical incoherence of socialist revolutionaries, seeking a different kind of paradise, that is always just over the next hill). So when critiquing them, best to avoid saying it’s just this one group. It’s everyone, albeit not in the same way, with the same set of justifications.
A true miracle, in the religious sense, would be impossible to explain. But we can never know that an explanation might not emerge someday. So it’s a question of faith. As Jesus himself would have agreed. He is said to have told people who he had supposedly cured that they’d cured themselves, through their own faith. (He believed anyone could work miracles.) And faith healing is something science has tried to understand–why it seems to work at times, and not at others. How would you prove it had worked, or not? They’re still trying to explain it. Good luck with that.
All this being said, sometimes (usually) reported miracles are just not real at all. Misunderstood, misreported, and sometimes made up out of whole cloth. Even the Catholic Church understands this, and carefully investigates reported miracles, when evaluating candidates for sainthood. There are and ought to be skeptical inquiry. Faith without doubts is dead. 😉
You mean an undisputed fact? Not necessarily. But there should be some sold grounding in real-life experience (inevitably full of disputed incidents). Coherence is a tough thing to wrap one’s mind around, though. Particularly when one hasn’t imbibed enough caffeine in the morning.
Godspell, totally agree that coherence is quite a slippery thing. Meaning is, too.
I’d like to better understand Stephen’s view of it as well, in light of the great, and rather Wittgensteinian, question about what we mean when we use the terms ‘miracle’ and ‘supernatural’.
If one doesn’t believe those terms have referents “out there” in reality, does that thereby render them meaningless and/or incoherent?
Hngerhman said
FocusMyView said
This post is: do you believe in miracles. Miracles as in Biblical Floods and Dying and Rising Son of God that goes to the Underworld. These are not unexplained happenings. These are fictionsDo you think miracles such as these did not happen because:
A) miracles are improbable, or
B) miracles are impossible?
c) because they are literary devices meant to make a point or entertain or both. Luke Skywalker can not use the Force except in a movie. In the movie such a force exists.
Technically, such a force could exist in reality. Again I am 100-1/infinity sure that this literary device does not exist in reality. It was created by the imagination of an author.
I should back up because I reread the post and it was mostly Jesus miracles instead of OT literary devices. I think there is definitely a distinction. A powerful God could certainly cure blindness with spittle, and could endow another with that ability as well. Even such a powerful God can fit in with naturalism.
The distinction here between the general population believing in faith healing, astrology, magic spells (found in early Christian papyri) and authors using patterns in other literature can be tougher to sift out. The Messiah conceived after the Holy Spirit comes upon Mary seems to follow a pattern in Greek literature, for example. While miracle workers are found in all ancient literature, it seems to be more of an actual practice in the time period as well.
FMV – thanks for the response.
If I understand correctly your commentary around the Force counterfactual; and in particular:
1) p(not Force) = 1 – 1/x, as x → ∞
Then it would seem, I over-simplify, that (c) collapses to (a). Unless you mean to say that x actually jumps to the limit of ∞, in which case:
2) p(Force) = 0 [strictly]
I think you would say 1), but please correct me if I’m off base.
I’m not intending to split hairs for its own sake, but to understand if we disagree around the why of our assessments of these miracles. It would appear we agree at least that neither of us is claiming miracles are strictly impossible.
FocusMyView said
As far as sufficiently advanced technology, is there the idea out there that Jesus was secretly high tech? Or Moses? Was it common practice in ancient high tech Egypt to throw down staffs that turn into snakes and see who has the most powerful snake?
God save us from the overly literal. And I don’t mean that literally, either. God has no reason to save us from ourselves. 😉
Hngerhman said
FMV – thanks for the response.If I understand correctly your commentary around the Force counterfactual; and in particular:
1) p(not Force) = 1 – 1/x, as x → ∞
Then it would seem, I over-simplify, that (c) collapses to (a). Unless you mean to say that x actually jumps to the limit of ∞, in which case:
2) p(Force) = 0 [strictly]
I think you would say 1), but please correct me if I’m off base.
I’m not intending to split hairs for its own sake, but to understand if we disagree around the why of our assessments of these miracles. It would appear we agree at least that neither of us is claiming miracles are strictly impossible.
I really do have to get the **** out of this place before I am driven entirely mad. And it hardly need be said–not much of a drive.
** you do not have permission to see this link ** wrote
I’ve made the simplifying, conversational assumption that it makes enough sense when we talk about that definition of miracle.
Would placing a temporal limitation on the definition bring the concept closer to a provisional coherence in your mind? I.e., an event that appears to defy all current explanation (including by not limited to all currently understood laws of the universe as well as reasonable extrapolations thereof)?
Well words don’t have meanings they have usages. And if we come to a mutually acceptable definition of ‘miracles’ then yes we can play a language game and call it a discussion or even an argument. (This makes the Wittgensteinian in me happy.) But I am compelled to point out that no mechanism exists to distinguish a miracle from an act of nature that we simply don’t understand yet. (This makes the logical positivist in me happy.)
I sincerely hope that the war between the Wittgensteinian in me and the logical positivist in me never ends with victory for either side.
Do I believe in miracles???? Most Certainly, yes!!!!! I have worked in the health care field for many years at the bedside of many very sick patients. Many of my doctors believe in them also. I have been so blessed to have had the working experience which God has given me. So many people that actually do know my personal past have felt sorry for me, I do not because I have felt like it has made me be the person I am today. I have seen miracles at the bedside and in my life. One may say that it is just the unexplained, but in medicine, I do feel it is more than that. We see unexplained every day.
When I used to work Christmas Day in the ICU and have to leave my family at home, I would pray that something would happen that would be a Christmas miracle at work to make it worth it. You would not believe how many times patients would turn around Unexpectedly on Christmas Day.
Janet Parsons RN, MSN, CCRN-K
Hngerhman said
FMV – thanks for the response.If I understand correctly your commentary around the Force counterfactual; and in particular:
1) p(not Force) = 1 – 1/x, as x → ∞
Then it would seem, I over-simplify, that (c) collapses to (a). Unless you mean to say that x actually jumps to the limit of ∞, in which case:
2) p(Force) = 0 [strictly]
I think you would say 1), but please correct me if I’m off base.
I’m not intending to split hairs for its own sake, but to understand if we disagree around the why of our assessments of these miracles. It would appear we agree at least that neither of us is claiming miracles are strictly impossible.
I want to technically leave room for doubt. I cannot disprove a god of some sort exists, and some of these concepts would indeed be able to cure, or appear in the sky to thousands at one time. While the evidence may reflect something more like 1 – 1/10 as the likelihood of most of our God concepts not existing, the trend over time seems to have come from 1 – 9/10 in the past reckonings. So the long view, or trend, gives us basically a 100% likelihood of a God not existing, with the tiniest possibility that He does exist.
Besides, if we think of Him, and calculate Him, He must exist somewhere. And if He exists somewhere, He must exist everywhere. So no matter how infinitesimal the likelihood of God existing may be, God will always exist! (Pack your bags Patheos!)
Stephen said
** you do not have permission to see this link ** wroteI’ve made the simplifying, conversational assumption that it makes enough sense when we talk about that definition of miracle.
Would placing a temporal limitation on the definition bring the concept closer to a provisional coherence in your mind? I.e., an event that appears to defy all current explanation (including by not limited to all currently understood laws of the universe as well as reasonable extrapolations thereof)?
Well words don’t have meanings they have usages. And if we come to a mutually acceptable definition of ‘miracles’ then yes we can play a language game and call it a discussion or even an argument. (This makes the Wittgensteinian in me happy.) But I am compelled to point out that no mechanism exists to distinguish a miracle from an act of nature that we simply don’t understand yet. (This makes the logical positivist in me happy.)
I sincerely hope that the war between the Wittgensteinian in me and the logical positivist in me never ends with victory for either side.
Hi Stephen, thanks a ton!
I too hope your inner Wittgenstein and inner logical positivist continue in perpetual stale mate. I’m irreparably old-school Humean, so there’s no hope for me…
By tweaking the definition of ‘miracle’ temporally, it was in fact my very intention to entice you into playing a Wittgensteinian language game with me! Ha.
I agree entirely that we do not have any reliable mechanism by which we can distinguish ‘miracle’ on the one hand from ‘currently inexplicable act of nature’ on the other. That is true as far as it goes, but I that seemingly is also to blur epistemology and metaphysics (and perhaps ontology).
Even if we grant the following proposition as true…
“Instances of Type A are (epistemologically) indistinguishable from instances of Type B.”
…it does not thereby follow that it is incoherent to speak of Type A events. At least not as I understand it.
As with you feeling compelled to make your excellent indistinguishability point, I myself would symmetrically feel compelled to note that you (or anyone) cannot distinguish me (or any other person aside from oneself) from a consciousness-less automaton (my wife would agree with you…), but that does not thereby render the term ‘Other Person’ incoherent. It may render sentences in the form of with “X is another person” indeterminable in truth value from our limited first-person perspectives, but indeterminable-ness is not what I think you mean (maybe I’m wrong?) by coherence. Please do correct me if mistaken.
Also, the indistinguishability relation is symmetric. Meaning, we (physicists, smarter than I) cannot currently adequately (nor deeply) explain the observed accelerating expansion of our universe. At present, it looks conspicuously indistinguishable from a miracle (tongue planted firmly in cheek). I would think we’d both deny a claim that “dark energy is a miracle”, but why? I think that’s because, while difficult to pin down precisely, we both know what the hypothetical claimant means by ‘miracle’, and labelling dark energy as such would just be missing the mark.
NB – I started to respond on ‘meaning is use’, but realized that way monsters lie… If you’d like to do that, we could move venues.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert