(21 votes, average: 4.71 out of 5)
Loading...I recently learned of a new book that has come out arguing *against* the idea that miracles happen. It is a collection of essays edited by John Loftus, an interesting who in some has had a similar faith trajectory as I: started as a very conservative evangelical, studied at evangelical schools, and ended up leaving the faith and becoming an atheist. Among other things, for one of his master’s degree he studied with the evangelical philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig, whom some of you have heard of.
The book is called The Case Against Miracles, and I thought it would be interesting to see some bits of it here on the blog. As you know, I like to have a variety of points of view represented here, most recently Mike Licona, who is the author of the popular book Evidence of God, and whose views of miracles, I think it is safe to say, is almost precisely the *opposite* of John’s.
The next two posts will be the Foreword of the book written by Michael Shermer, who is an expert on the history of science, a long-time contributing writer for the magazine Scientific American, the of The Skeptics Society, and editor-in-chief of its magazine Skeptic.
Both John and Michael are on the blog, and they will be able to respond to your comments and questions. Here is part 1 of Michael’s Foreword to the book. I think it’s safe to say they will clearly be dealing with the problem of miracle head-on!
–
Michael Shermer is the author of The Science of Good & Evil and Why People Believe Weird Things, among other works.
********************************************************************
Foreword for The Case Against Miracles, edited John Loftus, [email protected]
On Miracles and Truth
By Michael Shermer
Have you ever gone to the phone to call a friend, only to have the phone ring first and find your friend on the line? What are the odds of that? Not high, to be sure, but the sum of all probabilities equals one. How many times did you phone your friend and he or she didn’t call? How many times did your friend phone and you weren’t thinking of him or her? Multiply that by a couple hundred million people in the U.S. alone making dozens of calls a day, and it becomes almost inevitable that this seemingly miraculous connection—which many people attribute to synchronicity or Karma or a supernatural force or God or whatever—is fully explained by probabilities. Given enough opportunities, outlier anomalies—even apparent miracles—will happen. And thanks to the confirmation bias in which we look for and find confirming evidence for what we already believe and ignore or rationalize away disconfirming evidence, we will remember the hits and forget the misses.
A miracle may be defined in many ways, so let’s start with this colloquial meaning of a highly unusual event, as when someone exclaims “it’s a miracle!” when winning the lottery, or “it was miraculous” when recovering from a serious illness, or most famously at the end of the 1980 Olympic hockey game when the underdog U.S. team defeated the might Russian juggernaut and the ABC TV sports commentator Al Michaels exclaimed “Do you believe in miracles?!” Let us quantify this intuitive sense of a highly unlikely event as one with million-to-one odds of occurring. Now let’s apply some back-of-the-envelope calculations along the lines of the apparently miraculous phone call above. Assuming we’re awake and alert for 12 hours a day and that, say, one bit of information flows into our brains through our senses per second, that generates 43,200 bits of data per day, or 1,296,000 per month. Even assuming that 99.999 percent of these bits are totally meaningless (and so we filter them out or forget them entirely), that still leaves 1.3 “miracles” per month, or 15.5 miracles per year. That is, with enough data accumulating from the world there’s bound to be highly unusual occurrences that we notice. How unusual? One in a million.
I once employed a similar back-of-the-envelope calculation to explain death premonition dreams, you know, the type where someone has a dream about a loved one dying and the next day they find out that a grandparent or parent or close family member or friend passed away in the middle of the night, maybe even around the time of the dream. How unusual is that? Well, the average person has about five dreams per night, or 1,825 dreams per year. If we remember only a tenth of our dreams, then we recall 182.5 dreams per year. Let’s say that there are 300 million adult dreaming Americans who thus produce 54.7 billion remembered dreams per year. Sociologists tell us that each of us knows about 150 people fairly well (the so-called Dunbar number named after Robin Dunbar who discovered this in his research on human social networking), thus producing a network social grid of 45 billion personal relationship connections. With an average annual death rate of 2.4 million Americans per year (all causes, all ages), it is inevitable that some of those 54.7 billion remembered dreams will be about some of these 2.4 million deaths among the 300 million Americans and their 45 billion relationship connections. In fact, it would be a miracle if some death premonition dreams did not come true! Here’s an announcement you’ll never hear on television:
Next on Oprah: a woman who has had numerous death premonition dreams not one of which has come true yet, but stay tuned because you won’t want to miss her incredible story.
But this is not what most Christians, theologians, and religious apologists mean by the word miracle. They mean something more than a highly improbable event within the natural laws of nature. They mean something divine has happened, and to make this case Christian apologists go deep into the weeds of philosophy and theology (and sometimes even science) to make their case, for example Lee Strobel’s 2018 book The Case for Miracles, which includes a chapter on my own journey from religious belief accepting miracles to scientific skepticism rejecting miracles.
It is vital that we have a viable response to the claims of Christians and others that miracles are real, and John Loftus has done just that in this, the most comprehensive work ever compiled for, as it is aptly titled, The Case Against Miracles. The chapters span the range of miracle claims, including the philosophical arguments of Christian apologists, biblical miracles from the Old Testament to the New, the miracle of creation, the miracle of life, the miracle of Noah’s Flood, the miracle of the virgin birth of Jesus, the miracles Jesus’ allegedly performed such as turning water into wine (I’ve seen Penn & Teller perform this one!) and raising the dead, and of course the biggest miracle of them all (for Christians anyway), Jesus’ resurrection from the dead and ascendency into heaven. I thought I knew a lot on these topics—inasmuch as I was once a born-again Christian myself and made these arguments, then became a born-again Skeptic debating believers—but I learned more from reading this one book than all other works combined. The Case Against Miracles belongs in every library and personal bookcase of both believers and skeptics.
Let’s start with how the word “miracle” is defined. In John Loftus’s introduction to The Case Against Miracles he notes that the pre-scientific biblical “signs and wonders” definition applied to just about everything that happened in the world, from the ordinary to the extraordinary—from normal births to virgin births, from rain to deluges, and from famines to feasts. Clearly this will not suffice. If everything is a miracle then nothing is a miracle. And as Loftus notes, as science developed over the centuries more and more of these signs and wonders were explained by natural law, leaving fewer and fewer divine miracles.
Enter the Enlightenment philosopher David Hume, who, in his 1758 An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding famously defined a miracle as “a violation of a law of nature,” and less famously as “a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity or…some invisible agent.” In fact, his Section X, “Of Miracles,” provides a generalized, when-all-else-fails analysis of miraculous claims. That is, when one is confronted by a true believer whose apparently supernatural or paranormal claim has no immediately apparent natural explanation, Hume gives us an argument that even he thought was so important (and Hume was not a modest man) that he placed his own words in quotes and called it a maxim. I think it is so useful an argument that I have called it (in my 1997 book Why People Believe Weird Things) Hume’s Maxim:
The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), “That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish.” When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.
In the two and a half centuries since Hume wrote this passage we have learned much about deception and self-deception from the study of human perception, memory, and cognition, especially the plethora of cognitive biases that distort our picture of reality, so Hume’s Maxim is even more supported today than it was in his time. People are routinely deceived by others, self-deceived by themselves, and misperceive how the world works. When someone tells us of a miracle they witnessed, or of a miracle someone told them about, it is far more likely that they “either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened.”
THE FOREWORD WILL CONTINUE IN THE NEXT POST. This first half is free and open to the public. Most posts on the blog are for members — but the good news is that it is very easy to join. So why not do so? It costs very little and you get a boatload for your money. It’s about 50 cents a week for five lengthy posts on matters of interest. And every cent goes to charity.
The “telephone call” and “dream” events are quite persuasive. I have read John Loftus (both his books and his website) for years and have also been a reader of “Skeptic” magazine. I highly recommend both Loftus and “Skeptic.”
With regard to Hume’s maxim, I would add that if one is going to play the odds, then most “miracles” are much more likely to be legendary than to be actual, historical events.
Is this the same John Loftus who says ‘Arimathea’ means ‘Best Disciple Town’?
Pseudoscholarship is Pseudoscholarship is Pseudoscholarship. Whether you like what it’s saying or not. I suppose he might get something right now and again. (It would be a miracle.)
That was Richard Carrier who said that.
Really quick to pass (an incorrect) judgment, don’t ya think? The book is an anthology of 15 different scholars and experts in the field. Are they all engaging in pseudoscholarship? (That word doesn’t need to be capitalized, by the way.) I would encourage you to read the book before making such uncivil comments.
Hi John & Michael –
I’ve just purchased The Case Against Miracles. Any book recommendation by Bart Ehrman in itself justifies running to the bookstore, and with a foreword like this from Michael Schermer, it cements the urgency. I enjoyed MS’s The Believing Brain, and I am looking forward to digging into TCAM.
Thank you both for participating on the blog!
Dr Licona was recently on the blog, discussing his views on inerrancy and miracles. In his book on the resurrection, he attempts to give treatment to Hume’s maxim (and Hume’s other buttressing arguments). Further, leveled at Dr Ehrman’s “by definition, a miracle is the least likely occurrence” objection as well as at Hume, Dr Licona makes ample use of William Lane Craig’s argument for the “inscrutability” of evaluating the resurrection under a Bayesian framework. Namely (as I understand how Licona positions WLC’s argument), that a Bayesian framework breaks down due to base rate issues because (a) on the one hand, a resurrection miracle is a low ex ante probability in a presumed naturalistic-only frame, but (b) on the other hand, it’s a high ex ante probability if there’s a God who wants to resurrect Jesus. With some additional bulwarking moves, the conclusion is supposed to be that one cannot make such an assessment since a Bayesian analysis collapses in on itself due to the inability to judge how to weigh (a) vs (b).
Question: John and Michael – how do you each view WLC’s ‘argument from inscrutability’ that anyone who makes the claim that miracles are (necessarily) very low likelihood is making an unfounded (and unfoundable…) assertion?
Thanks much! Happy holidays!
I thought Michael would respond to your question so I didn’t do so here. I basically wrote a whole chapter answering it, #3. If you have any questions after reading it let me know. Cheers.
Hi John –
Thanks so much! I have now read (and re-read) your chapter 3, and enjoyed it thoroughly – tightly argued, vividly presented and well researched. Incidentally I had the distinct pleasure of studying (briefly) with Dr Fogelin, so your incorporation of him into the Humean defense added a little bit of nostalgia for me to the hard-hitting argumentation.
If I understood it correctly, the section of chapter 3 that discusses WLC’s Bayesian argument is one that gives (deft) treatment to the apologetic’s positive argument that the purported antecedent probability of miracles is high given (a presumed) body of theistic background “knowledge”. You swiftly and decisively dismantle that version of WLC’s position.
I’m curious how you think about a subtler version of this theistic-friendly position, the purported argument from inscrutability. It’s basically an argument from (epistemological) skepticism -which purports to argue that when one attempts to employ Hume’s maxim (or Ehrman’s aphorism) alone (without other arguments), one cannot rule out a supernatural frame, or, even further, that one cannot adjudicate between the naturalistic frame (miracle = exceedingly low probability) and a supernatural one (miracle = presumably high probability under certain cases), without helping oneself to an pro/anti-supernatural bias from the outset. Basically, without helping oneself to a frame or in the absence of further arguments, one cannot say whether a natural or supernatural frame is more probable, and that therefore any attempt to select a base rate (antecedent probability) with respect to miracles is ‘inscrutable’. He then turns this objection of inscrutability into a cudgel to say that Ehrman’s position (and Hume’s) is essentially question-begging.
FWIW, I think this version of WLC’s argument (or Licona’s presentation of it) runs aground in several different directions (baby with the bathwater fallacy, base rate availability, absolute vs relative category error, smuggled question begging, super-selective framing, etc.).
I’m quite curious as to your view on it, as a (seemingly) fellow Humean. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion is what originally led me down the primrose path to agnosticism…
Thanks a ton!
Hngerhman, thanks for appreciating what I wrote in my chapter. Authors love that kind of criticism!
In that chapter of mine, just before dealing with John Earman I think, I share some quotes by JL Mackie. He talks about two different contexts. See if that doesn’t address your devil’s advocated scenario. Other than that your thoughts on it are shared by me. I think that version of WLC’s argument (or Licona’s presentation of it) runs aground in several different directions (baby with the bathwater fallacy, base rate availability, absolute vs relative category error, smuggled question begging, super-selective framing, etc.). Cheers!
Thanks so much. Am loving the book!
Miracles by definition can’t be explained by science. And Shermer’s logic is faulty. He fails to establish that any person has death premonition dreams that do not come true. It’s just idiotic speculation. Likewise, his quote of Hume is silly. Hume boldly claims who can and cannot command his beliefs and opinions. Miracles aren’t about science or what someone else believes. Miracles are about what a particular person believes, and neither Hume nor science nor Shermer has any place to tell you what is not a miracle. Moses parted the Red Sea? Yep. Jesus turned water into wine? Yep. Jimmy Swaggart healed a person of back pain? If you say so.
I must get this book! As a doctor I have too many times internally rolled my eyes when someone praised God for their “miraculous” healing when I knew full well that they had enjoyed the benefit of modern medical care. Or in one case, the woman who was cured of a (fortunately) very treatable cancer but then credited God with directing her to the right doctor who could make the right diagnosis and give her the right treatment. But there is a dangerous side to belief in miracles: people sometimes refuse good medical treatment, or worse yet refuse it for their children because they trust God will provide a miraculous cure if they simply have enough faith. Incredibly, at least one state I know of, Idaho, specifically protects parents who let their child die in such a situation. I had a woman almost refuse treatment for biopsy-proven lymphoma because her spiritual advisor told her it was just allergies. Fortunately she changed her mind and accepted treatment, but I wonder how many others do not.
Thank you for your post, doctor. Sadly, the refusal to give proper credit or to accept medical treatment is far too common among the faithful. You will find that the book explicitly addresses what you wrote in a number of different places.
Thanks for bringing this book to my attention! Just another benefit of my membership to your blog.
I hope you check it out. The book is well-worth the read : )
Oh good! John Loftus, Michael Shermer and Bart Ehrman are three of my favorite thinkers. And now they’re all here in one place. It’s a miracle! Glad to see the focus on human psychology and probability. I don’t know of any miracles that can’t be explained in terms of these two subjects. Thanks for writing the book and making it available for Kindle!
If you like the psychological aspect of miracle claims, you’ll love Chapter 4, “Properly Investigating Miracle Claims.” ; )
Thanks!
Help me understand. In many of your posts and other guest posts, I seem to sense a bridge from: I don’t believe christ rose from the dead or the virgin birth” therefore “I am an Atheist”. Is it so illogical to not believe in ‘miracles’ but still believe in a God and not lose your faith?
.
I’ll take this one as directed to me instead of to Michael. No, definitely, I do NOT see a necessary bridge there, at all. For many years I was a Christian who did not believe in a literal virgin birth or that Jesus was actually raising people from the dead. For me, being an atheist had little to do with which stories about Jesus were historically accurate. It was instead the bigger question of whether it made sense — to me — to believe that there was/is a God who is active in the world at *all*. Because of the immense suffering so many billions of people suffer around the world, I decided I simply didn’t believe it any more.
Of course you are right. Good point.
I read the book. It is a devastating deconstruction not only of the belief in miracles but Christian apologetics as a whole. I would strongly encourage everyone to purchase and read it. You can order it as a gift through Amazon. Amazon will send the book directly to the person. And here is a challenge to every skeptic/athiest reader of Bart’s blog: Send a copy of “The Case Against Miracles” to a Christian apologist, your former Christian pastor, family member, friend, or neighbor for Christmas. Debunking the belief in miracles and the supernatural is the best gift they will receive this holiday season!
I sent a copy to Michael Licona (among others). I hope he reads it.
I love it! Thank you for your support and for your “holiday spirit.” : )
“I read the book. It is a devastating deconstruction not only of the belief in miracles but Christian apologetics as a whole. I would strongly encourage everyone to purchase and read it. You can order it as a gift through Amazon. Amazon will send the book directly to the person. And here is a challenge to every skeptic/athiest reader of Bart’s blog: Send a copy of “The Case Against Miracles” to a Christian apologist, your former Christian pastor, family member, friend, or neighbor for Christmas. Debunking the belief in miracles and the supernatural is the best gift they will receive this holiday season!
I sent a copy to Michael Licona (among others). I hope he reads it.”
Beautiful and heart-warming as always Gary.
I don’t know about it being a good Christmas (or Easter) gift…if you know what I mean… but it sounds like something I’d like!
Nice to hear!
I’ve read many of John’s other books. They are very good I think, and I would highly recommend them. Just make sure to search for John W Loftus, as without the W you often get results from the wrong author.
Another way you might define a miracle might be an event that only a divine or otherwise supernatural entity could perform. But this brings a number of immediate problems: what sort of supernatural entity or we talking about? A demon? An angel? A ghost? A demigod? The Christian God? Or one member of the Trinity that is said to compose that God? And how is any mortal supposed to recognize a supernatural being of any sort? Or know in any way what a supernatural being can or can’t do? Distinguish a demon from a god or an angel or a ghost, or person of the trinity, or even a skilled magician or for that matter, an alien with advanced technology? Seems pretty hopeless to me.
Your post reminds me of the stories in Exodus when Moses would perform a “miraculous sign” (say, turning a rod into a snake) only to have the Egyptian magicians perform the very same “miracle.” Indeed, there are a number of episodes from scripture where demonic supernatural agents are performing miracles (properly defined). There’s no reason to think that a “miracle” has always to be beneficial or to come from a benevolent being.
When I believed in God, it was *comforting* to believe that God could do a miracle to help me. I didn’t dare think of all those poor babies born with severe birth defects who were left to suffer horribly. If there were such a thing as miracles, they needed them more than I did. But, sadly, we have no shortage of suffering babies who humans cannot cure.
I love what Edward Babinski says in Chapter 5 that miracle claims look awfully credible when all you do is count the hits and ignore the innumerable misses.
I just finished reading this book. thoroughly enjoyed it. I’m active on a Catholic forum where there is currently a thread discussing miracles. While some Catholics ARE skeptical of miracle claims, I’m amazed at the number of Catholics that are adamant that certain miracle claims are true…and proven! The two biggest are probably Fatima and an Eucharist miracle from centuries ago. It’s amazing how faith verifies Catholic miracles yet denies other faiths claims.
While some authors in this book make their cases a bit better than others, every one of them had me thinking and agreeing that miracles just don’t happen. Coincidences and unlikely events, sure. Miracles against nature and physics….nope. They just promote hope and faith for those that already believe. Good read!
The confirmation bias will always creep its ugly head to corroborate all manner of beliefs. But I’m glad to hear you enjoyed reading the book. Thank you! : )
Doesn’t the Catholic procedure for canonization include a verified miracle performed by/through the candidate? If so, does the Church have a set of criteria for determining what constitutes a miracle?
Dr. Ehrman,
Is “The Case Against Miracles ” a scholarly work or more on the lines of Lee Strobel’s books?
Thanks, Jay
Hi, Jay! I’m Dr. Darren Slade; I wrote Chapter 4, “Properly Investigating Miracle Claims.” Thank you so much for your post, and I think you have a valid concern. To answer your question: yes, the book is of an academic, scholarly quality. You will find that of the 15 contributors to this anthology, the vast majority have doctorates in relevant fields of study and teach (at the college/university level) or publish extensively on religion. But more than that, each contributor interacts (both scholastically and philosophically) with many of the best apologetic works and arguments in favor of miracles. For instance, in my chapter, I present the most current research pertaining to the psychology of judicial-criminal investigations, as well as other psychological variables that can discredit a miracle claimant’s credibility, suitability, and accuracy. In fact, if you check out the preview of my chapter here (https://darrenmslade.academia.edu/research), you will see that Chapter 4 cites more than 65 peer-reviewed academic publications to make its argument. The point is that the book’s contributors are scholars who address the subject of miracles as experts in their particular fields of training and experience.
I think it would be more accurate to call it “a trade book” as Dr. Erhman uses the phrase. It seems to me the book was obviously written for a general audience rather than a scholarly one. That doesn’t necessarily exclude the possibility that some scholars might read it but I would be very surprised if it was actually written for a scholarly audience. darrenmslade answer that “the book is of an academic, scholarly quality”, which may very well be correct, sidesteps the question of the attended audience of the book.
The book is written by experts and scholars. Its target audience is university students, Pastors, and educated people in the pew. While it’s not aimed at other scholars we know they will read it, so the material is scholarly.
Thanks for your reply. I think it’s clear from, “Its target audience is university students, Pastors, and educated people in the pew.”, that it’s a “trade book” as Dr. Erhman uses the phrase, and which members of this blog are familiar with.
A book recommendation by Bart always leads me straight to my Amazon account and “poof”, I’m reading it. Thanks, Bart.
Great to hear! And thank you for your support. Let us know what you think when you finish the book : )
A couple of incredibly important points people usually don’t consider when discussing miracles:
1. Since miracles are by definition finite occurrences, we cannot infer an infinite/omnipotent power from them. They would only indicate that some sort of supernatural entity or entities with some degree of power exist and intervene in human affairs. It could be lowercase g god(s), ancestor spirits, vague higher power(s), of course God, etc. Throughout the ages men have dreamed up all sorts of supernatural beings to explain strange occurrences in nature.
2. If the harmony of nature’s laws counts as evidence for the existence of God, then miracles, or the occasional disharmony of nature’s laws, count as evidence against the existence of God. Those who hold both that the harmony of nature’s laws proves God and that the disharmony of nature’s laws proves God are trying to have their cake and eat it. They are forced to abandon at least one of those arguments to remain logically consistent.
Hi,
Thanks for the post. Informative as always.
The examples given are good, but would the average Christian consider death premonition as a miracle or my mother calling me just when I was about to call her? Not certain. I agree that what many people call miracles are simply coincidences. There are others that are more difficult to explain away and many of these are likely the result of some phenomena we are not yet able to understand. Will we ever reach a state where everything will be understood? I’m not certain about that either. So there could possibly be some non-zero percentage of events that can never be explained and some people will choose to see those as miracles. I respect that and I cannot really say they are wrong in thinking that as although the calculations given in this post seem to stack the odds against them, they are also not irrefutable proof against miracles either.
In the end if the belief in miracles brings you joy, then so be it. It was weird that my mother called just when I was thinking about her. I’m glad she did, however. Merry Christmas mom. Miss you.
“I recently learned of a new book that has come out arguing *against* the idea that miracles happen.”
I hope everyone on the blog has a Merry Christmas, and may your holiday season be filled with facts and evidence along with a heavy dose of reality.
I have not read the book or heard of John Loftus. There is so much literature out there to please or comfort whatever answers you are searching that align with your beliefs/thoughts. I recently stumbled upon Bart Ehrman and Michael Shermer. There is compelling academic work and research done by both. The truth is, we can reason and philosophize, but the fact remains that we do not know for sure, both scientifically and religiously . I love reading books from both sides of the spectrum, taking into consideration the writers research and dedicated work. It somehow develops in me a bit more understanding on how we act, behave and evolved in our history. I would not want to read a book to discredit another, because I realize how powerful personal convictions are. Whenever I am confronted in a religious conversation, I simply state the possibilities from both sides and let the individual decide for themselves. Sometimes, I feel, we use references, such as books, as absolute truths to disprove/deconvert others who think different from us and not read as unbiased reasoning. Religious people very rarely read books outside their beliefs and vice versa. The only exceptions are academic scholars who want to know other’s point of view. I struggle with a belief in a God when there is so much pain/suffering occurring in our planet, hence finding it hard to accept. I concur with Bart when he considers still living a Christian lifestyle while rejecting a belief in a God/supernatural. The people we become, our character, has everything to do on how we live and think about one another. Legendary NCAA coach, John Wooden, would tell his players, ” I am not interested in your reputation, what people think of you, rather your character, its who you are”. If at the least, despite my unbelief, the life and teaching of the historical Jesus has transformed and renewed profoundly, life/hope in many who had lost all hope, that in itself should be considered. I look forward to reading this book.
I don’t know if you remember an author called Erich von Daniken, who sold a lot of books using a particular conceit. He would look for something unusual that had not been properly investigated and say, ‘Look, nobody can explain this so it must have been extra terrestrials.’ Of course, as soon as the thing was looked at and analysed properly it ceased to be a mystery but by then he had moved on to other examples. I put miracles in the same bracket: ‘How else can you explain X, except divine providence etc?’ Absence of evidence is not, of course, evidence of absence.
Hi John & Darren –
On Dec 22 I posted a comment asking about miracle claims wrt Hume/WLC/Bayes, which remains pending moderation. If it is too involved to address, please ignore. I just wanted to make sure it wasn’t just lost in the holiday shuffle.
Happy Holidays and many thanks!
Okay. I did.
I made two comments to this post that have still not been moderated. Actually, I think there’s more than just mine that hasn’t been moderated because we can see through the dashboard when everything gets cleared out. It hasn’t been cleared in nearly two weeks.
I post everything that is relevant and not snarky, and apart from having to skip a day now and then, it is completely up to date.
Here is yet another post by someone who has no degree in philosophy claiming a philosophical argument is great.
It is clear that philosophical views as expressed by Hume are biasing history departments.
I just wish historians in this field would be honest about that, and admit they do not analyze miracles using historical criteria because they think the philosophical arguments expressed by Hume are so strong they overwhelm any historical analysis. That is they reject the idea that miracles may have happened for philosophical reasons and never even try to apply historical criteria.
Then a student would know that your views on miracles are based on philosophical arguments not historical analysis. The student could then consider the philosophical argument made by Hume with people who have a degree in philosophy.
None of your guests talking about how compelling Hume’s argument is have such a degree. And as someone who has a bachelor’s degree in Philosophy I can tell you the argument is not all that well received among philosophers.
If they end up thinking Hume’s philosophical argument is not so strong after all then they might look to historians that actually do apply historical criteria to answer whether miracles have happened.
I’m note sure where you are getting your historiographic ideas from, that they are somehow unrelated to philosophical assumption. Which historians are you relying on for this view? I’m not talking about historians or religion, I just mean regular ole historians. Do you know of any bona fide historians of, say, the American Revolution or WWII who say that the reason something happened was because of divine intervention?
“I’m note sure where you are getting your historiographic ideas from, that they are somehow unrelated to philosophical assumption.”
You say you are not rejecting miracles due to the philosophical problems of miracles but because of the “historical problem of miracles”. But your “historical problem” is really just philosophical arguments.
“Do you know of any bona fide historians …who say….something happened was because of divine intervention?”
We agree it is not the job of historians to say whether some event happened due to divine intervention. I do think it is a historian’s job to say whether some event happened. And events like Jesus died at time X and Jesus was alive at time Y would be the sorts of events historians address.
Historian: “I don’t care how many sources, or how close in time they are, etc. That will never lead me to believe a man was alive two days after he died, because *for philosophical reasons* I think that would be a miracle, and I accept Hume’s arguments against miracles,”
I am fine with that because the historian is clear his rejection is due to his philosophical views *not* historical analysis.
You may want to listen to my lecture this afternoon. I’ll be dealing with it then. The historical issue is all about probability — as is every historical judgment. What is the most probable explanation for what people report about event X? When I say that I saw David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear (which I did see, as did millions of eyewitnesses), is it most likely that in fact it ceased to exist for a time? That he has the power to take things out of existence?
The historical evidence would be 1) he claimed to make it disappear and 2) many eyewitness claimed to see it disappear.
The best explanation of that historical evidence is not solely a historical issue. People will have to use their own background beliefs and decide. As for me I know David Copperfield and modern magicians are excellent at using lights, mirrors and misdirection. So no I do not think he actually made the statue of liberty “cease to exist” even though it appeared so to you. But that is based on my background knowledge of him and his tricks it is not due to any sort of historical analysis or axioms.
I am not even against you bringing your philosophical or other background beliefs into your historical analysis. I am just saying be upfront about it. Say “I don’t believe a miracle happened because I subscribe to Hume’s philosophical argument that miracles are never the most likely explanation.” I think you are misleading people when you say historical evidence can be evidence a miracle happened. Whether it can, will depend on philosophical presumptions.
I don’t think it works quite that way. With respect to both the Disappearance of the Statue of Liberty and the Resurrection of Jesus, what the historian does is collect what appear to be the relevant data: for example a full account of what people claimed they saw happen. And then the historican comes up with a list (hopefully comprehensive) of various ways to explain the data (the data are not what happened but what people *said* they *saw* happened) — including in their range of options whether people really said it and hw you know; what they said they saw; whether they really saw it or saw something else or nothing at all; whether what they saw is what they did see; etc. etc. Each option is evaluated as more or less likely (e.g., s it likely that a Martian spaceship temporarily removed the Statue of LIberty at the requrest of David Copperfield? It’s an option that needs to be considered…) and then the historian makes his/her case.
What you said on 5/12/2022 is exactly how I think it works as well. The historian looks at the historical evidence and hopefully uses some of the critical tools you mentioned in other places such as multiply attested, proximity to the events claimed etc., and then tries to figure out what happened. But that is where your background beliefs come in.
For example, you find Hume’s philosophical arguments convincing. You also think God miraculously acting in the world is about as likely as the moon being made of green cheese or that aliens made the statue of liberty disappear during David Copperfield’s trick. I am *not* saying you are “biased” for holding those beliefs. I disagree with your philosophical views but I do not think everyone that disagrees with me is “biased.” But I am saying these philosophical views shape the history conclusions you draw. That is all. I don’t know why you are so resistant to recognize this. If you don’t think Hume’s philosophy has any effect on how you do history why do you spend time teaching Hume’s philosophy in your History course?
That’s certainly true. Even if you think that something happens 1/2 times is more likely to have happened than something that happens 1/2,000,000 times that’s in a sense a philosohical position. So too if you think that something that happens 1/999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 times is less likely than something that happens roughly every minute. And if you think that something that has never happened in recorded history is more probable than something that happens all the time because someone reported that they saw it happen — OK, that’s based on philosophical ideas too. But they do happen to be philosophical ideas that I think are are pretty compelling, I haven’t heard a good argument for thinking they are not.
“And if you think that something that has never happened in recorded history is more probable than something that happens all the time…”
Do you not see how you are begging the question?
JM”Here is a recorded report of a miracle.”
BE”Well then it can’t be history.”
JM”Why?”
BE”Because by definition if it is a miracle then it can’t be history since miracles are so extremely improbable.”
JM”But why do you assume they are so extremely improbable?”
BE”Because a miracle was never recorded in history.”
You are defining miracles out of history and then saying since they never happened in history they are extremely improbable. Hume also begs the question. You view Hume’s *philosophical* argument as compelling because you are not listening to philosophers. None of 5 or so people you have had address this issue have *any* sort of degree in philosophy.
What is it that happens “all the time” that you are supposedly comparing this to? Do you personally know anyone (let alone several people) that claims they saw someone alive after they died but they were just mistaken? That doesn’t happen “all the time.”
No, I don’t think I’m begging the question — I’m not sure why it would seem that way? If you’re asking if X is what probably happened to Jim or Y, and X is something that happens roughly three times a day to most people onthe planet and Y is something that has happened only twice in all of recorded history — which is *probably* the thing that happened to him? X or Y? It has nothing to do with anti-supernatural bias against miracles.
response to BDEhrman June 4, 2022 at 7:58 pm
You are begging the question because you are assuming your conclusion is true and using that assumption as a premise to your argument. If you define “historical evidence” as excluding evidence for miracles then of course you can say no historical evidence for miracles exists.
There are documents that provide evidence that innumerable miracles have happened. I am not saying I am ultimately convinced by the evidence. But I at least recognize there are records that provide “some evidence” that ?thousands/millions? of miracles occurred. Do you agree?
How did you come up with only two miracles occurring? Is it the creation of the natural universe (something that is beyond the natural world) one of them? I believe the Eucharist is a miracle that happens at innumerable masses around the world every day. And yes there is historical evidence for my view in ancient texts. To get an A in your class would I have to agree with Hume’s argument you that you uncritically teach/preach and give answers against my religion?
Not sure you’re hearing me. I’ve explained that this is NOT what I’m doing. Reread what I said and you’ll see.
BDEhrman “Not sure you’re hearing me. I’ve explained that this is NOT what I’m doing. Reread what I said and you’ll see.”
What I quoted from you is still there. Are you not saying that miracles events have a very low probability? Didn’t you suggest it “never happened in recorded history.” Anyone that thinks God does not exist would, unsurprisingly, assign a very low probability to God acting in the world. You claim miracles do not happen every day. I am telling you that is not a view shared by about 400,000,000 Catholics -including myself. I am just asking that you not insist people that study or teach history adopt your religious or philosophical views when they consider the likelihood of past events. Historical method does not require someone adopt Hume’s argument. We can agree (or reasonably disagree) on the weight of different historical criteria without sharing the same background views. That those background views will come into play for both of us should be expected. We should simply be upfront when they impact our analysis. There is no reason to deny or hide it.
Yes, it has a very low level of probability and in my debate with Mike he said that a resurrectino to immortality had never happened in recorded history, EXCEPT for in the case of Jesus. That’s what I’m asking: how likeely is somethign that is never known to have happened (ourtide of the one exception being claimed in the history of humanity?)
On the other hand, How many times in recorded history have people who were cerifiably dead claimed to have appeared alive? Well, one out of eight Americans just today claim they’ve had a vision of a deceased loved one, so it’s must a matter of math.
It is not an accident that historians who try to figure out what probably happened in the past are not convinced that something that defies what we can show happens every time is probably what has normally happened before. All 7 billion people inthe world today whose brain cells literally die will stay dead. If there is ONE exception that is claimed to that can you say that it’s “probably” an exception because some people averred it happened? Taht’s the evidence? Are those claims for one person sufficient to show that it’s *probably* true given what we know has happened for every other human being who has lived over the past, say, million years? I don’t see how that can be anything but a religious claim, not a historical one.
I don’t know what “debate with Mike” you reference. Is “Mike” a Catholic that believes the miracle of the Eucharist happens thousands of times every day? Please understand your own views as a former evangelical (or Mike’s view) do not necessarily reflect the views of all Christians.
“That’s what I’m asking: how likeely is somethign that is never known to have happened (ourtide of the one exception being claimed in the history of humanity?)”
Do you agree all particular historical events only happened once? So if something only happening once means it is never probable then we can not believe any history. But you are talking about a general class of events right? So at what level are we to generalize? As I said I think “miracles” as a general matter happen very frequently. Do you mean a more particular miracle like someone rising from the dead? Like Lazarus and Jarius’s daughter? Or do you mean the particular case Jesus rising from the dead? We have lots of historical evidence of miracles. How you ultimately weigh it will not only be based on historical criteria but other philosophical/religious background beliefs.
Mike Licona. It was a public debate mentioned on the blog recently. Of course I agree that all lhistorical events happen once. That’s not what I mean obvoiusly. Every time you throw a five pound rock into a lake it will sink. That will happen only once for that incident: you , that rock, that lake, that instance. But each and every time everyone on earth throws a five pound rock into a lake (assuming it’s not frozen! 🙂 it will sink. What never ever happens is that it floats. If youtell me that you saw someone throw a five-pound rock into a warm lake and it floated or shot up 200 feet into the air or … or did something other than sink, I would not believe you. It would not be compelling evidence to me for you to say you knew three other people who could confirm your testimony. If for you three witnesses is enough to make you think the rock really did float, then I’m afraid we don’t have much more to discuss!
My issue is when you suggest that somehow the historical criteria can’t be applied to apparently miraculous occurrences that reportedly happened in the past. And notice I say “apparently” miraculous occurrences. Because I *do* think it is beyond historical analysis to say whether some event would constitute a miracle. Just like it is not a historical analysis that will tell us whether the sun going dark in the middle of a cloudless day is a miracle. It may “appear” to be a miracle to some but whether it is or isn’t a miracle goes beyond historical analysis. The historian addresses whether an occurrence happened according to historical criteria.
However, saying someone died at time A and/or someone was alive at time B *is* something historians use historical criteria to determine. Notice when you say you can’t use historical criteria to analyze whether Jesus died at time A but was then alive on some day after time A, *you* are going outside of historical analysis. You are saying that such an event would be a miracle therefore you can’t analyze it using historical criteria. That is a philosophical view.
I’m not quite sure what you’re asking. We do talk about events in the past all the time that some people allege were miraculous. As to your example, I’m not aware of any historian ever arguing that a person A who died on Date X but they was found in fact to be alive on the later Date Y comes to the conclusion that therefore a miracle happened. CAn you give me an example?
“…I’m not aware of any historian ever arguing that a person A who died on Date X but they was found in fact to be alive on the later Date Y comes to the conclusion that therefore a miracle happened.”
I’m not saying historians should say a miracle happened. But do you agree the historical evidence can show 1) a person predicted they would rise from the dead due to God’s intervention. 2) the person was dead at time X and 3) the person was alive at a later time Y.
Do you agree with all 3? I agree it is not the historian’s place to see the best explanation of this is a miracle occurred that involves philosophy, theology maybe science etc. But when you take this historical evidence reasonable people can say this is “historical evidence” that supports the claim that a miracle occurred.
Now it may not be *convincing* to *you* because you have philosophical views that suggest a miracle is about as likely to happen as the moon being made of green cheese. But not everyone shares your philosophical outlook.
Are you talking about Jesus? No, I don’t agree with either 1) or 3). I don’t think he predicted his resurrection and I don’t think he was alive after he died.
No not about Jesus necessarily. I just wonder what types of claims you think historical evidence can support. You don’t think historical evidence can support “1) a person predicted they would rise from the dead due to God’s intervention.” I did not mean he/she *successfully* predicted it, just that he/she made the prediction. Do you still think historical evidence can’t 1?
And you also reject 3? Are you only rejecting 3 if you think the evidence is convincing that 2 is true? Do you think there can be historical “evidence that supports” a claim that is in reality not true? Every U.S. jury trial involves an issue of fact. And usually both lawyers present relevant evidence for their side, even though one of the sides must be arguing for a false claim. We recognize there can be *evidence* that something happened even if we ultimately don’t think it happened. Some academics seem unable to understand that. They seem to think anything that goes against their conclusion (which by definition is what they think really happened) is no evidence at all or something.
1. Yes, of course history knows of people who claim they will rise from the dead. It doesn’t know that Jesus said that. 2. I certainly think that misinterpretation of evidence can lead to false historical claims, yes.
Re:5/12/2022 comment. If you look at a transcript of a past trial and you see the defendant testified A) “I did not kill the victim.” And the transcript also says a witness testified B) “I saw the defendant kill the victim” It would seem we have two pieces of historical evidence that supports contradictory conclusions. One conclusion must be false. It can’t be that the defendant did kill the victim and he did not kill the victim.
A is evidence that the defendant did not kill the victim, and B is evidence that he did. Regardless of whether I conclude the defendant did kill the victim, or not, I would say there is some historical evidence supporting a false conclusion. And there is no reason to think I must be “misinterpreting” what the witnesses are saying in the transcript. Do you agree? If so that is what I mean when I say there can be historical evidence that supports a false claim.
Yes, both claims would need to be given equal consideration. If in support of A is the definitive evidence that the victim was killed in Syracuse at precisely the time the alleged killer was in Los Angeles, then someone arguing for B would have a high mountain to climb, since in most people’s thinking that would involve, then, an impossibiility (assuming we mean that someone personally physically confronted the person to kill him with, say, a knife, which would require his personal presence). The law will not admit of claims that violate what is possible.
In response to BDEhrman’s May 14, 2022 at 8:13 pm
My question is not whether testimony that someone saw the defendant kill the victim would be *convincing* evidence. The question is just whether that testimony could be “some evidence” that the defendant did kill the victim. Whether that person’s testimony is ultimately convincing will depend on how much weight we give it versus the contrary evidence. How we weigh the evidence will depend on our background beliefs and reasonable people will often disagree.
But saying there is “no evidence” the defendant killed the plaintiff when someone testified “I saw the defendant kill the victim” is dishonest. That I had other evidence which supported my conclusion that the defendant did not kill the victim is irrelevant. Academics often seem to think there can be no evidence X occurred, if X did not occur. Ancient authors make many claims of supernatural events. For religious and philosophical reasons, I will usually not be persuaded. My philosophical and religious views that a miracle didn’t happen shouldn’t blind me to the fact that there is historical *evidence* of many miracles.
I wouldn’t say that is what academics ever say, if tyey are being serious historians. What they say is that we have to gather together what we know and figure out the best possible explanation for it. Every possibility has to be considered. Some of the possibilities are more likely than others. Was JFK shot by one gunman? Or was there more than one gunman? Is it possible that he was never really shot? Is it possible that he was shot by a Martian? And so on. List all the options and then figure out which ones are most likely and then make a choice, if a choice is possible among the ones that seem reasonably likely.
response to BDEhrman June 4, 2022 at 8:01 pm
In your teaching company courses you said that as a historian you would make the determination of what happened based on certain criteria, multiply attested, against interest, etc. But then when it came to miracles you refused to follow those same rules. You started making jumbled philosophical arguments about science and history to try to support your philosophical rejection of miracles. Hume’s arguments are weak, but there has been a certain culture in certain history departments that has lead to them being accepted uncritically. I wish you would at least have a philosophy professor that is critical of Hume’s argument offer the other side in your classes. Even in your blog not one person was even a philosophy major.
Certainly, students that disagree with Hume, would not want to study with you if you think believing in a miracle is the same as believing the moon is made of green cheese or that JFK was killed by a Martian. You make it very clear that anyone that believes in miracles and thinks historical documents support their view will not be taken seriously by you.
Yes, but not on the basis of an a priori claim. You’re pigeon-holing me and not listening to my way of proceeding. In my lecture I didn’t explain the logic; but I did to you and I don’t think you’re hearing it.
Why, btw, do you think it is impossible that JFK was killed by a Martian? Do you think it is impossible that he was killed by John Wilkes Booth? Do you think that it is impossible that he was killed by someone who at the time was in Melbourne? Do you think it is impossible that he was not killed? How do you yourself establish what was possible? If ANYTHING at all is possible (that he was killed, e.g., by John Wilkes Booth who was a Martian who at the time was in Melbourne) then how do you go about deciding what is so highly improbable as to be, practically impossible? And how among things that you think theoretically possible do you decide what are among the most *probable* options. It isn’t good enough to keep yelling “Hume”! I held these views for years before I had ever heard of Hume’s views or read him. So bracket that. How do YOU decide what is possible and what is probable?
reply to BDEhrman June 15, 2022 at 5:26 pm
I am not aware of any historical evidence that JFK was killed by an alien or John Wilkes Boothe. Quite a bit of historical evidence suggests he was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. If we had historical evidence (especially if it was strong on historical criteria such as multiply attested etc.) that John Wilkes Boothe rose from the dead and shot him then ok we would have “some historical evidence.” I wouldn’t deny there is historical evidence just because my religious and philosophical views would almost certainly convince me that is still extremely improbable.
I am not asking History professors to adopt my religious or philosophical beliefs. (I think you are.) I am asking that they distinguish what are their religious/philosophical beliefs (that shape their views on what is probable) and not claim that they are the result of historical analysis.
Or if you want to simply make it part of your historical analysis that would be fine too. Or be clear by adding a historical criteria that the historical claim “fits your other background beliefs” or something similar.
My point is that if someone had *said* he was killed by a Martian, would you consider that evidence that he was? Or at least evidence that should be considered? My view is that it is evidence that should be considered. Every possible explanation or claimed explanation ought to be considered. This is not based on religious views.
I don’t think you would accept the claim of a “believer” that you have an anti-Martian bias if you say that it does not seem plausible to you. It has nothing to do with background beliefs. (I held *exactly* these views about historical claims about miracles when I was a supernaturalist believing Christian.) Do you, btw, accept the evidence for miracles outside of the Christian tradition — e.g., among ancient pagans or modern Muslims? Do you exam their claimms and decide that since people swore/swear that they saw these things happen they probably did happN/
“My view is that it is evidence that should be considered.”
If written it would be historical evidence. I think we agree then that there can be historical evidence that someone was dead at a time and alive at a later time.
I don’t think I would accept that I am biased but my rejection of the notion that he was killed by a Martian would absolutely go beyond the normal historical analysis of multiply attested etc., to my other background beliefs. How can you say it wouldn’t be based on background beliefs – and by background beliefs I mean beliefs that have nothing to do with the criteria historians use such as multiply attested, close in time etc? Can’t you see how such a record could pass historical analysis but you would still reject it based on beliefs that are not based on the criteria historians use?
Yes there is obviously historical evidence for Pagan and Islamic miracles. To say “there is no historical evidence that any miracle happened in support of Islam” is absolutely absurd. Yes I consider them using historical analysis as well as my background beliefs.
Yes, I could see that it’s possible for me to reject something because of my beliefs. But that’s not why I’m rejecting it. Maybe I haven’t emphasized enough: I found supernatural explanations for past events implausible when I was a complete supernaturalist who blelieved miracles did happen. But I also knew what it meant to to history.
I don’t think you can at all say you’re not biased. Humans by their very nature are biased. I guess another way to put this is that I’m no more anti-supernatural than you are anti-Martian.
I think every hypothesis that can explain what happened in the past needs to be subject to analysis and decisions have to be rndered on the basis of what is most probable. I personally don’t think it’s *impossible* there are Martians. But Martian explanations are rather low on my list of likelihoods.disabledupes{2abb6fd78da7509c99184ba64f558ded}disabledupes
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you have a list on the blog (or in one of your books) of ancient Jewish ‘miracle workers’ that pre-dated Jesus?
Nope, never thought about coming up with one! Most owuld be in the OT, of course. The two closest parallels to Jesus that are frequently cited are Haninah ben Dosa and Honi the circle-drawer. I imagine someone has combed Josephus and others for more examples. Maybe someone else on the blog can help us out here!
Dr. Ehrman,
That would be great! Completely unrelated to Jewish miracle workers, do you think it’s true that followers of the Buddha believed he walked on water? If so, what do you think the implications are with that pre-dating Jesus (or can it be proven that Buddha walking on water predates Jesus?)
I’m afraid I don’t know what they would have believed.