Miracles
BUM: On Miracles
The number of questions and aspects of the arguments about, for, and against miracles makes it a broad philosophical subject full of interesting discussions. There are several questions that I wish to explore: do miracles happen? are we ever justified in believing that a miracle has occurred? what about the nature of miracles makes it problematic for using them as a basis for religion?. I am going to argue that while I do not feel that there is sufficient evidence to believe that a miracle has ever occurred, there remains a possibility that they do occur. Also, while it is difficult to justify believing that a miracle has happened, there is at least one example in which this thinking would be justified. And finally, a miracle that merits a justifiable belief would provide evidence for only one class of possible claims that a religion can make namely power claims and hence, cannot be the sole basis for believing in the full range of a religions claims.
First of all, I have to define what I mean when using the term miracle. My preference is for Purtills definition slightly modified: an exception to the natural order of things caused by some supernatural power.[1] I prefer this definition because it prevents the argument that could arise by stating that a miracle is a violation of a natural law since it defines miracles as impossible and leaves us without an argument. I also think that it fully encompasses what people generally consider to be a true miracle. I should also define what I mean when using the term religion. I define a religion as a collection of beliefs, rituals and experiences, both personal and corporate, organized around a concept of an ultimate reality.[2]
To answer the question of whether miracles happen, I think some careful distinctions are required. To ask whether miracles occur is closely related to the question of whether we can be justified in believing that a miracle has happened. I could hardly argue that miracles have occurred and that we are never justified in believing they have. I have never had sufficient evidence to be convinced that a miracle has ever happened. Does that mean that they have not? No. Could they happen? As a question that pertains to reality, miracles are either possible or impossible. As the question pertains to epistemology, I doubt we could ever satisfactorily demonstrate the impossibility of miracles. Therefore, as far as I can know, I will have to state that they are possible. So, granting the possibility of miracles, are we ever justified in believing that one has occurred? Humes treatment of the problem is fairly convincing: we have experienced people lying before, but we have not experienced an exception to natures order, therefore, upon being told of a miracle, skepticism is the wise path to take. A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.[3] If it is claimed that a miracle happened in the past, it would take some extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claim. Mackie argues in a very similar way to Hume when he states that, This event must, by the miracle advocates own admission, be contrary to a genuine, not merely a supposed, law of nature, and therefore maximally improbable. It is this maximal improbability that the weight of the testimony would have to overcome.[4] While Mackie uses the term law of nature, rather than my usage of natural order, the argument holds with the relevant substitution. The natural order must be in such a way that the miracle could not come about naturally, and hence, be maximally improbable.
One problem with the miracle discussions, as they have been considered so far, is that they involve a single incident in the past that occurred in such a way that the only lasting or testable impact was on the observers of the miracle. I do not mean that we could not test and be sure that the wine that was supposedly turned into wine from water was wine, but testing that it had become wine through a miracle is inaccessible to our questioning. However, a possibility that I have not come across, on my own at least, is that of an ongoing miracle. By ongoing miracle is one where the miracle is continuing and verifiable by anyone who desires. This is different from the continued miracl
e of what Hume writes of a person who is conscious of a continued miracle in his own person to believe what is most contrary to custom and experience[5]. I think the best explanation of what I would call an ongoing miracle, as I intend it to be used, is provided by an example of what I call a Persistent Jesus. For example, in the Christian tradition it is believed that Jesus was resurrected after he was crucified. Let us say that he then remained a normal person physically except that he did not age past his age at the time of crucifixion and continued to walk among us and interact normally to this day. This means that after his resurrection, the Persistent Jesus would not necessarily be expected to perform any other miracle besides neither aging nor dying (and in my example, he does not perform any other miracles). This Persistent Jesus could travel all over, and we would have hundreds of accounts from people who were with him all of their lives and could testify about his ageless immortality. He could have pictures taken with Lincoln, then Einstein, and now with Clinton and Bush. Here is an example, where there is a true violation of the natural order, and I would definitely say that there would be sufficient evidence to believe that a miracle occurred.
A possible religious objection to a miracle on this scale may be that this destroys all necessity for faith, but I wish to quickly counter that. First, that objection is only a problem if faith is a good thing to have or something God desires, which is debatable. Second, there is still faith involved in believing the claims that the Persistent Jesus makes, his moral character, and the afterlife. Third, if we take the account of the Doubting Thomas who allegedly was given overwhelming evidence before he believed that a miracle had happened, there is as least one case where overwhelming evidence was given to a person before he was convinced. Thus, this does not rule out its plausibility, in the Christian tradition at least, as something God would never do.
What about the nature of miracles makes it problematic for using them as a basis for religion? The first problem comes from the difficulty in determining whether a real miracle has occurred or not. As Hume, Mackie and I have argued, a miracle that happened in an instant and is removed from further inquiry would be very difficult to justify a belief in, especially to non-witnesses. The second problem is relating the quality of having power over some aspect of nature to how having that power guarantees or implies the miracle workers other claims (if he made any). Let us say that by demonstrating some miracle we are correctly convinced that some miracle worker possesses some kind of supernatural power. That does not provide help in determining answers to some major questions about how to lead an ethical and moral life. Authority over nature does not readily correlate with authority over any other aspect of life. As far as I can tell, there has not been much argument for stating that the amount of power a person or being has bears any relationship to the morality of the being. Ghandi is looked upon by many as having great moral leadership, while at the same time it is recognized that he was not physically powerful. That does not diminish the claim that he was a great moral leader in any way, because we correctly keep the two areas of human ability separated. I think that a miracle can only justify a religion as far as that miracle demonstrates the truth of a specific claim that the religion makes. If the God has alleged power over the wind and rain, and a miracle actually occurred involving both, then yes, the belief in that specific power of god is justified. However, if the claims of a particular religion include claims about the moral character of their God I think that the adherents would have to look for justification of those beliefs outside of the realm of miracles. Even if the doubtful claim of having a lot of power is necessary for having moral excellence, I think that it is far from obvious that having certain powers is sufficient for having moral excellence.
The third problem is that the claim of power usually far exceeds the demonstration of power. For example, we would not generally be impressed by a man who claimed to be able lift a car, but all he ever actually lifted was a can of soup. This does not mean that the man could not lift a car, but for a claim that extreme, it usually warrants some extreme evidence to back it up. Similarly, if Jesus claimed to be the all-powerful creator of the universe, or to be all-powerful, and all of his alleged miracles involved local exhibitions over local events, it should seem natural to be somewhat disappointed with his showing. Even if we accept that Jesus, for example, did the miracles that he supposedly did according to the New Testament, we are completely justified in asking, Jesus demonstrated that he had power over the number of fish in a basket when feeding a large crowd 2,000 years ago, why should we think that he continues to have any power or that his power is over something like an afterlife? Or asking, why does ones demonstration of power justify any of the claims he or she made about there being an afterlife at all, much less how we are allegedly judged. In other words, miracles as a demonstration of power over the natural world can only justify claims of power over nature to the extent that they are demonstrated. Any other claim in a religion needs either to be either justified
by some other means, or taken on faith.
Miracles might be expected from a religion that makes claims of divine intervention. Yet, the adherents to a particular religion might be disappointed if the relationship were completely one-sided, such as, if sacrifices were made without any detectible reciprocation on the part of the deity. But it is equally possible that there are religions that do not expect miracles. For example, the followers of Buddha could regard the Buddha as a morally enlightened teacher whose lessons constitute the discovery of some great moral truths. There would be no problem if these Buddhists considered the Buddha to be completely mortal and not-divine. They would not expect or hope for miracles as a sign that justifies any part of their religion they could be convinced of the moral truth and the importance of following the religion based on internal inspection and external verification of the truth of the teachings.
In conclusion, I agree with Hume and Mackie that testimonial evidence for a past miracle is unlikely to justify a belief in an actual miracle, regardless of whether the alleged miracle happened or if miracles are even possible. However, I think that the possibility of a persistent miracle that is verifiable over centuries by anyone and everyone, including through the current day, could demonstrate enough evidence to justify belief that a miracle is occurring. The problems that come with trying to justify a religion based on miracles come from a number of angles. The first problem that most current religions have is they that involve miracles that are based on past testimony and fall into the trap that Hume establishes. Another problem is that since it is possible to justify a belief in miracles, at least in the case of a persistent one if not others, that they can only provide evidence for claims of power over the natural world. Most religions are fairly comprehensive in their worldviews and usually involve other claims involving the way to lead a good life, etc. So, at best, miracles can only justify the belief that a certain religion accurately describes the powers that their supernatural entity demonstrates. In other words, miracles can only provide a partial basis for a religion, and as is shown through the Buddhist example, miracles are not a necessary basis for a religion.
style=”mso-element: footnote-list”>
align=left>
id=ftn1 style=”mso-element: footnote”>
[1] Purtill, Richard. Thinking About Religion: A Philosophical Introduction to Religion, © 1978 ). Reprinted in Philosophy of Religion ed. Louis Pojman. Wadsworth Publishing Company. © 2001. p. 286.
align=left>
id=ftn2 style=”mso-element: footnote”>
[2] Based on Prof. Tlumaks handout introducing the problem of evil.
align=left>
id=ftn3 style=”mso-element: footnote”>
[3] Hume, David, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1748). Reprinted in Philosophy of Religion ed. Louis Pojman. Wadsworth Publishing Company. © 1998. p. 300
align=left>
id=ftn4 style=”mso-element: footnote”>
[4] P. Mackie, J. L., The Miracle of Thesim (Oxford Univ. Press, © 1982). Reprinted in Philosophy of Religion ed. Louis Pojman. Wadsworth Publishing Company. © 1998. p. 319.
align=left>
id=ftn5 style=”mso-element: footnote”>
[5] Hume, David, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1748). Reprinted in Philosophy of Religion ed. Louis Pojman. Wadsworth Publishing Company. © 1998. p. 307
wow..i started to read that, and then was like, “whoa..tis loooooooong”…i’ll have to read a little at a time and get back with ya..lol
Warning Comment
Of course, Hume’s argument is faulty. Hume’s argument has no way to account for miracles actually observed. In addition, any new discovery that we didn’t understand would be ruled out as a non-existent occurance a priori using Hume’s argument. In order to disprove every witness who has ever testified to a miracle is quite a claim, and an arrogant one for Hume to make, if you asked me.
Warning Comment
All we need do to defeat Hume’s argument is to produce even a possible scenario where someone really did see a miracle and convey it honestly. Even one instance in the history of mankind, and this entire argument collapses in ruins. That is not to mention the circumstantial evidence implicit in any miracle. If there is circumstantial evidence that a miracle best explains, it is silly to rule
Warning Comment
it out a priori because you don’t believe in miracles by your worldview. I’m not saying you have to believe in miracles, but to disallow the possibility is quite a different thing. Hume’s argument is so faulty that even secular scholars don’t widely use it anymore. Most philosophers now would use another formation of the argument to try to discount miracles.
Warning Comment
I do agree with your closing sentence or so, however. Miracles alone are not a sufficient basis to ground a theistic worldview, though they can contribute. I am interested in your example of Buddhism. Their monistic, pantheistic worldview does not logically allow them to believe in a miracle. If all is one, there is no space for God to work, unless every time someone acts it is a miracle.
Warning Comment
Hume’s argument is not that miracles don’t happen – it is that we are never justified in believing that a miracle happened (especially if the only evidence is testimony). Mackie improves on the argument slightly by including what happens if you witness a miracle…
Warning Comment
Ew who reads this stuff? — nah I’m just jokin! lol! I like sooo have all of mty geomotry hw left to do! lol! I’ve done like 2 assignments this quarter! — yikes! — Bon
Warning Comment
Miraculously enough, the miracles performed not to prove power, but “so they might believe” provoke skepticism. If a supernatural being wished to prove its supernatural abilty to a being confined within nature’s laws, it would have to be in a small enough way to be percieved by them. i find it funny the debasement of leadership as demonstrated in the “persistent jesus” illustration ^_^ha.clinton
Warning Comment
well, if you analyze miracles, you might as well go into what luck and karma are, eh? and is there such thing as them?
Warning Comment
To say that it is never justified to believe a miracle has transpired is essentially the same as saying miracles don’t exist, a point which Hume himself wouldn’t have hedged on. From a methodologically naturalistic point of view, it is understandable to disbelieve all miracles. The question then becomes is methodological naturalism logically consistent, valid, etc, etc.
Warning Comment
I’d like to propose a topic, if i may? Plato’s chalenge of Immorality as defended by Glaucon’s “be immortal, it’s rewarding in itself” why be moral? fear of chastisement? ultimate self-preservation? love of fellows? these reasons suggest a god? “Be a philosopher; but amidst all your philosophy, be still a man.”_David Hume Nice research n analysis, bum. _Nightnymph ^-^
Warning Comment
“To say that it is never justified to believe a miracle has transpired is essentially the same as saying miracles don’t exist…” So what standards of evidence would you say are sufficient for believing that a miracle has occurred?
Warning Comment
“To say that it is never justified to believe a miracle has transpired is essentially the same as saying miracles don’t exist…” I completely disagree with this statement, by the way. For example, I think that there is strong evidence for the existence of muons, however, no person would have been justified in believing in muons until after 1850 at a minimum.
Warning Comment
I think before the validity of miracles can even be debated, you must know if you are a naturalist or a supernaturalist. If you’re a naturalist than there is no posibility of a miracle making the whole discussion null and void. To even question this is to ascribe to the idea of some sort of “other” outside the laws of nature.
Warning Comment
Just because you don’t believe in miracles doens’t mean they don’t exist. It’s a miracle that I’m alive today..I’ve had few close car accidents, my mother attempted suide (atleast once that I know of for sure), my daughter is alive – almost hit by a truck, a friend of mine gave birth to a boy with literally no blood, he was brought back to life…I don’t think those are just ‘coincidences.’
Warning Comment
“I don’t think those are just ‘coincidences.'” Then what are they?
Warning Comment
Miracles
Warning Comment
“Just because you don’t believe in miracles doens’t mean they don’t exist.” Clearly, you either didn’t read my entry, or you were just stating some fact that has no bearing on my entry for some reason. None of my arguments even approached that, nor did I conclude anywhere that miracles don’t exist.
Warning Comment
With your example, you’re making the same mistake Hume did. To Hume, a miracle isn’t a miracle, it is simply something for which current empirical knowledge makes an explanation impossible. It’s like a television to a bronze age person. A miracle? No, just something for which no explanation follows easily, given their knowledge. In this way, Hume denied miracles, just as you have.
Warning Comment
If miracles however, are an act of the omnipotence of God on the world he created, there may be no such explanation empirically. Then, the witnesses are justified in calling it a miracle, because no amount of human discovery in the empirical realm will validate the claim in the way Hume suggests.
Warning Comment
The problem with Hume’s theory is that it also invalidates many foundational truths that must obtain to partake in any sort of logical discourse. For example, “Because no one has ever seen the law of contradiction, for example, it clearly does not exist. We have ways of explaining it, but it is never justified to believe them because they themselves are not independently verifiable.”
Warning Comment
I have no problem with empiricism tempered by rationality, but to make Hume’s mistake is to apply radical empiricism to every descriptor, making any conceptualization unjustified, necessarily, be it a miracle or an abstraction, or a logical, intuitive truth for which no immediate, independent evidence can be presented. If you don’t believe in miracles, that’s fine. Just say so. 🙂
Warning Comment
Btw…there are a variety of qualifiers and quantifiers of so called miracle experiences I could suggest that would disqualify most of them, from a variety of worldviews. That still leaves a number of seemingly difficult instances which must be dealt with. There are of course, obvious disqualifiers, drug use, etc. There are some that are not so obvious, like consistency with worldview.
Warning Comment
“If miracles however, are an act of the omnipotence of God on the world he created, there may be no such explanation empirically.” But I conclude that it is possible for there to be a miracle with evidence that I and almost everyone else would accept – the details of which are given by the Persistent Jesus example. I think that this includes Hume as well.
Warning Comment
Didn’t Hume use the argument about Jesus and his followers as one of the miracles stories by which no one should accept on authority alone? If that’s not the case, then I’ve misrepresented Hume on that point. By the way, BUM, I sent you the paper on the resurrection…did you get it?
Warning Comment
Well, Bum, glad to see you’re still thinking as hard as ever. Sorry I haven’t been around much. I went home for break and I really didn’t touch the computer all that much. I’m too tired, sick, and stressed at this very moment to comment on all of the good stuff I’ve missed, but perhaps by spring break I will have caught up…lol.
Warning Comment
I honestly wish you could talk with some of the professors an chancellors (or vise versa) on campus…I believe it would be truly fascinating and wonderfully interesting to hear the lot of you go at it. I love that sort of stuff…Anyway, have a great day! God Bless!
Warning Comment
This is irrelevant, but seeing as though you are educated in science and philosophy, what are your thoughts on determinism? From what I’ve read, determinsim seems to agree with the law of physics, but an engineer said something about particles being random in some nuclear physics study. If you could write about this it’d much appreciated.
Warning Comment
Quantum physics, sorry, not nuclear physics.:P
Warning Comment
ON a separate topic, I have noticed that every single argument you’ve about the flaws of christian beliefs is based on one assumption: that the system of logic we humans use at this moment in the expanse of time, will lead to the correct conclusion. So while according to the latest system of logic and reasoning your arguments are correct, this system could be replaced any minute with a new one.
Warning Comment
You question whether we are justified in believing the existence of deities and supernatural forces, but when it comes down to it, are we justified in believing anything at all? Are we justified in believing that logic and rationality as it is currently known will obtain the truth? Such ways of thinking form conclusions very neatly….too neatly. Life is rarely so neat. Mathematics are but a
Warning Comment
symbolic, theoretical representation of the world.
Warning Comment
Evermore–it sounds like you’re advocating a theory of the world and of reason and logic that can only lead to relativism, subjectivism and ultimately, nihilism.
Warning Comment
How exactly does relativism and subjectivism lead to nihilism? Anyway, if I was ‘advocating’ subjectivism and relatism then it would be contradictory for me to advocate anything;). I just thought it should be noted because due to the recurring “religion is faulty because it is illogical, atheism is correct because logic draws that conclusion” motif.
Warning Comment
I agree with nevermore. I was about to post this huge rant about all of this here but I posted it on my diary if anyone is interested. Nothing new. Slightly inflamatory. Please read..note me as well. -its called “Let religion be a guide to life but leave the science out of it. “
Warning Comment
“Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders,” Jesus tol them, “you will never believe.” John 4:48 “Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may beleve that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” John 20:30 & 31
Warning Comment
[Ambassador4Christ] – what is the purpose of that last note?
Warning Comment
To simply state that miracles do exist and that they have purpose.
Warning Comment
“To simply state that miracles do exist and that they have purpose. [Ambassador4Christ]” I’m sure that since you’ve read my entry, that the justification for believing that a miracle has occurred takes a lot more than a statement.
Warning Comment
How about real life experience?
Warning Comment
“How about real life experience? [Ambassador4Christ]” I doubt it, because your testimony is going to be either of something that isn’t really a miracle; or it will be a true miracle claim, and therefore maximally improbable – which makes it extremely difficult to justify belief based on the “evidence” of a mere testmonial.
Warning Comment
I know I’m not the only one who will testify to miracles happening in or around their lives.
Warning Comment
“I know I’m not the only one who will testify to miracles happening in or around their lives. [Ambassador4Christ]” You’re missing the point entirely – testimony alone, especially of an ancedotal case – is never enough to justify a belief in a miracle.
Warning Comment
I don’t believe in miracles, I depend on them. I find myself telling others, he did it again, and again, and again. where there was no other possible explaination… God!
Warning Comment
^^^ I think you might be missing ambassadors point Bumski. His(or hers, don’t know Ambassadors gender) testimony might not be enough to justify your belief in miricles, but it’s enough to justify his. Call me nuts but most people without mental health problems of a hallucinatory nature tend to believe themselves as an eye witness. He’s saying there are others like him.
Warning Comment
“tend to believe themselves as an eye witness.” One of the main questions remains, then, is what “miracle” is Ambassador trying to claim happened? Is it a recovery against the odds?
Warning Comment
RYN: “Use the same reasoning that the IDers use – things are too complex to arise on their own – things are too complex to suggest only 1 designer…” I believe Hume made much the same point. 🙂
Warning Comment
I am an amature scientist. i study a lot of it. Stealth was right about a note i left. i was fairly general in my entry. I do want people to try a program called Avida. go download it. it is featured in Discover Magazine. Think of it as the digital version of the origins of the species. Summed up it sequences it’s own varience of genes and gives conditions to code. creating virtual life forms
Warning Comment
that are forced to compete and evolve. In fact it is so accurate (even in its early stages) it is being called a jumping step to the first true digital life forms (well except viruses) This software is impressive. I havebeen playing with it for a while now and havn’t even scratced the surface. The fact remains there is more proof for evolution then creationism. hands down.
Warning Comment
In fact most arguments against evolution are just that. they nit pick into the details to find cracks. scientists love that. They think..let them find the mistakes so we can fix them. Rarely do creationists or liberal humanitarians (a whole other subject onto it’s own) actually take the time to find proof. And to top it off that proof is usually suspect. ie human foot prints with dino prints.
Warning Comment
and that had little to do with what ATB was talking about .sorry dude. just for some reason i cant post notes on Stealths diary.
Warning Comment
I’m not claiming Creationism, though I perhaps could with as much logical justification as most of the Darwinian supporters I know. I’m only claiming that as a scientific theory, Darwin’s theory is powerless to describe origins. Furthermore, it is powerless (as yet) to describe things like the blood clot cascade and the bacterial flagellum. That’s not to say it can’t or won’t sometime.
Warning Comment
Scientifically, that critique stands or falls by it’s own merit. I’ve yet to see the critique of the biochemical and mathematical implications of full-fledged Darwinism met with any kind of clarity by the scientific establishment. I happen to have no problem with speciation or natural selection. That’s so obvious it seems to me to be a near tautology. But the critique doesn’t address that issue.
Warning Comment
I doubt that even origin should be brought into question. First off I would like to debate the idea of a theory. Scientists call it a theory because they do not have 100 percent of the facts to say “Eurika!” Evolution is missing key ingredients to declare a victory but that doesn’t mean it does not exist. Creationism has little fact to stand up to it except scripture. There is little physical
Warning Comment
evidence. so it is a thoery without much merrit. As for the origins of all life one can use the amazing power of mathmatics to calculate rate of chemical reaction to it’s mutation.Eventually over the billoins of years of inactivity one can see that when an unknown factor is introduced the chemical reactions must “adapt” to sustain. I have to run but this is interesting.
Warning Comment
Ride- I’m not arguing creationism. That isn’t what ID is about. Your response doesn’t meet my point. Mathematics, especially probablitity, works against full-blown Darwinian evolution as a theory of origins-the chance of the world being able to sustain life is something like 10 to the 148th power.That figure doesn’t cover the development of sentience. ID stands on it’s own, apart from creation
Warning Comment
A miracle is simply that…it is an event that cannot be explained scientifically…hence the name miracle. There’s many a things that can’t be explained by science..or medicine…exp. what causes a miscarriage.
Warning Comment
BTW, I’m a female, for whatever that’s worth :).
Warning Comment
You poor poor little man!
Warning Comment
“A miracle is simply that…it is an event that cannot be explained scientifically…hence the name miracle.” So, before we figured out how wind was produced, wind was a miracle? Before we figured out the photoelectric effect, the fact that electrons jumped off metals if you shined specific frequencies of light on them was a miracle?
Warning Comment
That’s Hume’s formulation of the problem of miracles exactly, which proves my earlier point–that to him, there is no such thing, just a thing for which no empirical explanation is currently available, which is, as I noted, the same basic claim as saying there is no such thing. The question then becomes if everything is explanable by empirical law. I submit there are some things that are not.
Warning Comment