I am very skeptical of miracle claims, especially those from ancient history. However, it does seem to me to be possible in principle for a miracle claim to be so strongly supported that it is more likely that a miracle occurred than that the people attesting to it are mistaken or lying. I believe even Hume allowed for that. Couldn’t there be a very recent event with a large number of independent, intelligent witnesses, perhaps video and audio recording, with the miracle occurring in a public place and subject to checking by various kinds of experts?
I’m not saying there have been any such occurrences – though a good place to start looking might be the appearances of Mary the mother of Jesus in a South American country that Ehrman describes in one of his books.
Even if a miracle is strongly attested, there would still be issues about interpreting a miracle. Which god did it? Is it repeatable and if so is it a miracle or just a new scientific fact? What if it contradicts well-established background knowledge? Is the miracle consistent with what we have good reason to believe is god’s plan?
Again, I am very skeptical of miracle claims but it seems closed-minded and un-empirical to rule them out in principle.
Mike
We have to start with, what is a miracle?
“My baby was given a 10% chance of survival and survived”, a friend shared a FaceBook post claiming that is a miracle. I am skeptical that it rises to the level of miracle. From your post, you likely agree.
“Thousands see something and there is general agreement of what they saw.” I would accept that as much closer to a miracle claim. Subject to the something not being the planet Venus misidentified.
I don’t believe everyone rules out miracle claims in principle, but very few miracle claims (in my experience) approach the second example. If an event occurs that we have difficulty explaining, transitioning from the event to an explanation of the event is problematic, as you pointed out.
Aliens testing mind control? Government testing mind control? Mass drug use? Mass conspiracy and suggestibility? As unlikely as each is, they are options at least as likely as a deity’s actions in my opinion. The possibility that the explanation is a previously unreported natural phenomenon must be high on the list as well.
When I hear a report of a miracle attributed to a deity, I am reminded of the medical conditions where survival rate is 0% (DIPG is one example ** you do not have permission to see this link **). If there is a deity who performs miracles, does he only inflict these conditions on people (children for DIPG) he is planning to kill?
Roy
** you do not have permission to see this link ** said
I am very skeptical of miracle claims, especially those from ancient history. However, it does seem to me to be possible in principle for a miracle claim to be so strongly supported that it is more likely that a miracle occurred than that the people attesting to it are mistaken or lying. I believe even Hume allowed for that. Couldn’t there be a very recent event with a large number of independent, intelligent witnesses, perhaps video and audio recording, with the miracle occurring in a public place and subject to checking by various kinds of experts?I’m not saying there have been any such occurrences – though a good place to start looking might be the appearances of Mary the mother of Jesus in a South American country that Ehrman describes in one of his books.
Even if a miracle is strongly attested, there would still be issues about interpreting a miracle. Which god did it? Is it repeatable and if so is it a miracle or just a new scientific fact? What if it contradicts well-established background knowledge? Is the miracle consistent with what we have good reason to believe is god’s plan?
Again, I am very skeptical of miracle claims but it seems closed-minded and un-empirical to rule them out in principle.
Mike
Would you accept a definition of miracle like “a temporary suspension of natural laws”, caused by a supernatural agent” ?
Temporary suspension of natural law caused by a supernatural agent is a pretty good definition. For me it would be a little more clear to say an intervention in the normal workings of nature by some kind of divine being. And it seems like it would have to be an intentional divine act, done in order to achieve some divine purpose.
Intention and purpose seem important in order to distinguish possible miracles from events that are simply weird or highly unlikely. A simple anomaly can’t be considered a miracle. Science encounters anomalies all the time and, if necessary, science modifies its theories to take account of the anomaly.
For the same reasons, it seems like it would normally be necessary for the miracle to occur in some kind of religious context. For example a person prays in public for something highly unusual and a divine being immediately answers the request. The longer the delay the more alternative explanations seem possible. And the more ordinary the thing a person prays for the less likely it needs a divine being being to cause it.
Another problem with miracles is that they can’t be routinely repeatable. If they are they become just another scientific fact. And yet, if a miracle isn’t repeatable, science tends to discount whether the event actually occurred. I don’t think this is a fatal problem but it suggests how complicated it could be to authenticate a miracle.
Mike
** you do not have permission to see this link ** said
Temporary suspension of natural law caused by a supernatural agent is a pretty good definition. For me it would be a little more clear to say an intervention in the normal workings of nature by some kind of divine being. And it seems like it would have to be an intentional divine act, done in order to achieve some divine purpose.Intention and purpose seem important in order to distinguish possible miracles from events that are simply weird or highly unlikely. A simple anomaly can’t be considered a miracle. Science encounters anomalies all the time and, if necessary, science modifies its theories to take account of the anomaly.
For the same reasons, it seems like it would normally be necessary for the miracle to occur in some kind of religious context. For example a person prays in public for something highly unusual and a divine being immediately answers the request. The longer the delay the more alternative explanations seem possible. And the more ordinary the thing a person prays for the less likely it needs a divine being being to cause it.
Another problem with miracles is that they can’t be routinely repeatable. If they are they become just another scientific fact. And yet, if a miracle isn’t repeatable, science tends to discount whether the event actually occurred. I don’t think this is a fatal problem but it suggests how complicated it could be to authenticate a miracle.
Mike
If there is a deity in our reality, science’s ability to detect and confirm the miracles performed by this deity is going to depend on its willingness to perform.
Is there any evidence that God intervenes in this world today? Does prayer work? Have there been any academic studies that have addressed this issue? Is it possible to test a hypothesis such as “Prayer makes no difference to the healing of or whatever is biblically appropriate” and have controls.
Interesting conclusion from the study that would not be well received by many. Perhaps, there is no point in praying for strangers or others with the expectation of some sort of divine intervention.
I do think prayer (and meditation) may be beneficial. There may be an effect of prayer not dependent on divine intervention, but rather on reducing personal stress and anxiety of the person doing the praying. Prayers can also highlight an issue and others may take action and then call it: God at work. For example, the church congregation prays over the budget and difficulty with finances, and sure enough more money flows into the collection plate. Some would claim that prayer has worked and God has moved to provide the resources to further his kingdom. Quite a miracle!
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)