But that amounts to saying "Whether miracles can happen or not, it is always irrational to believe them if you didn't witness them yourself." Granting at least the [i]possibility[/i] of miracles, the using the system Hume describes makes it impossible to investigate individual claims, because they must be discarded out of hat. I'm not usually a utilitarian, but it seems to me if a system makes it impossible to investigate the credibility of logically possible events, the system ought to be thrown out for something else. The only purpose Hume's idea seems to have here is to give justification to someone who has already made up their mind to disregard all miracle claims.
Besides, in what way exactly does a miracle defy obvious natural law? Sure, I experience water [i]not[/i] turning into wine every day. How do I turn that observation into an statement about what is and isn't possible, especially when considering matters of devine intervention?
Rafajafar. Thank you for bringing that omission to my attention.
Shalom,
Marshall
But I think the “possibility” of miracles is what Hume is pointing out quite clearly.
Hume is just pointing out that there is a significantly greater probability in natural occurances when compared to supernatural miracles. Can anyone deny this?
Take for example I tell you I can lift up a large truck with one arm over my head. Now that would certainly be miraculous and supernatural.
Now you have to decide which is more probable:
A. Miracle actually occured
or
B. Natural law prevents that from occuring
In order for you to accept A you have to admit that B is less probable. You have to admit that natural law which is something we witness regularly is less probable than supernatural phenomenon that virtually never happens when compared to natural law. So therefore for A to occur you have to admit that B (the natural) is even MORE miraculous because it is even less probable than A (the supernatural).
That's certainly true, but by that reasoning we should disbelieve any news report about someone winning the lottery, someone being struck by lightning, and so forth. If the likelyhood of natural occurances is the only thing to take into consideration, both of these things are statistically close to impossible.
Why can’t I simply believe that a fairly improbable thing happened? Improbable things happen all the time. In many cases, we believe these things happened without any direct evidence- we simply heard it from what we consider to be a credible source. Other than the examples I gave above, ought we also disregard any unlikely seeming “You’ll never guess what happened to me on the way home from work” type story we hear from a loved one, simply because the situation they discribe is improbable?
Perhaps miracles are a special case, though. If that’s what you mean, then you’ll have to explain in what sense miracles can be taken to be a special case, without an assumption that they don’t or can’t happen.
There is nothing supernatural about winning the lottery or being struck by lightening. Those things are very natural even though the probability is low for it to happen to ONE person, the probability isn’t virtually impossible with many people because we have EVIDENCE and can actually witness them.
Odds of being struck by lighteing are one in 600,00.
Odds of winning the lottery are …
What’s the probability of walking on water? Snapping your fingers and turning water into wine? Parting the sea?
And of course we have NO evidence outside of hearsay.
Do you believe that I can lift a full-sized truck over my head with one arm? Or does probability just come into play … this time?
I saw a show on the History channel where they talked about the parallels between the stories in the bible and speculation of alien life present here on earth.
It was quite entertaining. At one point in the show, they discussed how alien ships used antigravitational forces to part the Red sea to allow John and his crew to escape the oncomming attack of the Isrealites, I think it was.
Remember the part in the bible about the “pillars of light?” Well, those were alien ships directly overhead providing the light necessary for John to recieve the Ten-Commandments as they teleported the stone tablet from the ship.
Didn’t you know this, pal. My God, where have you been all this time?
Wait until the dragons come after the fourth plague, which will be planted here by the Grays(a species of alien) to kill off 75% of the planets human population(downsizing) so the Grays may occupy the earth and enslave the remaining 25% of the human population. We’ll make great pets.
You tell me. If your answer is 'zero', then you're assuming that miracles are impossible. If you need to assume miracles are impossible for the purposes of your argument, then why propose this argument for not believing miracle accounts in the first place? Simply say "You shouldn't believe in miracles because they are impossible" and be done with it. The argument you present is redundant at best, circular at worst.
If your answer is 'non-zero', then the case exactly the same as people being struck by lightning or winning the lottery. We have a case of a very rare (and therefore improbable) event, which ought to be approached with some level of initial skepticism, but not outright disregard.
If your answer is "inscrutable", then I still say that's not cause to disregard miracle claims. I would say that the probability of the occurance of any act caused by a free agency (like God, or a person) is inscrutable, but that doesn't mean we should assume [i]nobody[/i] does [i]anything[/i] unless we see it ourselves. Or does it? Hume was a hardcore skeptic, after all. :slight_smile:
I'd also like to point out that religious believers are not simply a group of people that believe impossible stuff. I don't see religious people as being any more or less credulous than anyone else. Approach 100 Christians and 100 atheists, and tell them both that you lifted a car with one hand (perhaps telling the Christians that Jesus helped you, and telling the atheists that adrenaline and your own will to self-determination helped you), and I think the number of believers would be about the same. Religious believers don't believe that impossible stuff happens, they simply believe in an agency in which atheists do not, and [i]because of that agency[/i] certain things are not actually impossible which may appear to be so to others.
You presented it as a delibrate example of something absurd and false, so no, or course I don’t believe it.
I’m not assuming that miracles are impossible. It is just a case of what is most probable. I find it interesting that you claim that in regards to biblical miracles, then YOU assume that miracles have to be considered probable, but in the case of my ability to lift a truck over my head … then we have to REJECT the probability of this miracle. 
I don’t think you are being consistent at all. But of course if someone can rationalize that it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to lift a truck over my head, but it is quite probable for someone to part the sea (even more probable than not); then how can I argue against that? Do I “need” to argue against that? It refutes itself.
The argument Hume presents is very sound and consistent. For someone to accept that a miracle occured, they have to accept that the natural is MORE of a miracle. To accept that Jesus turned water into wine, you have to completely reject that it was more probable that it may have been wine the whole time or water the whole time. You, in essence, are claiming that for water to remain water or wine to remain wine is a MORE miraculous than turning water into wine.
Look, I will now turn this water into … drumroll … water! Amazing. 
The only assumption being made with miracles is that natural law is even more of a miracle. That’s pretty silly in my opinion, but to each their own.
I will now turn this post into a … post. 
I didn't say that at all, you just want me to. All I've said about you lifting a truck over your head is that I don't believe it because you presented it as a false absurdity on purpose. If you seriously claimed that you could do such a thing, we'd be having a different conversation completely.
I also didn't say that miracles are probable. In fact, they are quite improbable. Again, though, improbable things happen constantly in this world (lightning strikes, etc.) and you haven't shown how miracles are any different- [i]especially[/i] since you aren't claiming they are impossible.
I’m beginning to think you are arguing with yourself.
No, I'm not. I'm simply taking our shared assumption (namely, that miracles are not impossible, but merely very unlikely), and believing that this unlikely event occured in a particular instance. Surely you've talked with enough religious believers to know that we don't expect water to turn to wine all the time.
I'd also like to point out that I already addressed all this with the concept of agency, and you completely missed it. Christians (for example) believe that there is an Agency that exists that can cause miracles. Assuming such an agency exists, believing in the occurance of a miracle doesn't even involve a violation of 'natural law', whatever that is.
If you are assuming no such Agency exists, why this complicated argument against believing in miracles? Simply state there is no agency which can cause miracles, and be done with it. If, on the other hand, you are allowing for the possibility of an Agency that can cause miracles, then your claim that one [i]must[/i] disregard natural law to believe a miracle occured is plainly false.
Or perhaps you're defining 'natural law' as "any instance of cause and effect other than miracles"? In that case, I have to conceed your argument, but it's completely meaningless.
As to this truck lifting example, why must I believe in everything you consider impossible just because I believe in one thing that you consider unlikely (not impossible, as you said yourself)? Suppose I had never heard of rain. Just because you believe water can fall from the sky, are you obligated to believe that people can lift trucks with one hand, simply because [i]I[/i] consider them both absurd? Of course not. You believe in a particular agency (weather) that causes rain to fall from the sky which I do not believe in. Further, you believe this agency doesn't give people super-strength. So your beliefs are completely consistant. It's the same with a religious believer.
What is absurd about me lifting a truck over my head, especially compared with biblical miracles? Heck, lifting a truck over my head is more probable than any of that other stuff … which you claim is NOT absurd. You are not being consistent at all with your argument.
Which is more probable: Me lifting a truck over my head with one hand or Moses parting a sea which weighs considerably more with a mental request? It is not even close. But MY miracle is “absurd?” Wow!
It is quite obvious why you think my miracle is “absurd,” but you don’t use the same approach with other miracles. Why can’t those other miracles be just as absurd as mine? Mine is more probable with witnessable nature. Ooooohhhh! That’s the difference. Natural is the miracle (or less probable).
You need to be consistent with your “miracles.” You have to reject the natural in order to accept any miracle. The national enquirer and the bible make a mint off of this. People willing to reject the natural in favor of the supernatural. A total perversion of probability in complete absence of evidence. Are such things “possible?” Perhaps with evidence, but without evidence it comes down to probability. Then all you have to base your decision on is what you HAVE witnessed. Anything other than that is complete blind faith in which you are willing to believe anything because you are ignoring EVERYTHING that is evident.
Without following this formula, you are going to believe everything you hear. At some point, you need either evidence or at least remote probability through what IS evident to establish such a claim. To accept a “miracle,” you have to say “screw the evidence and the evident: This DID happen.” It is sucker logic. “Enquiring minds want to know.”
Once again:
- Because you specifically brought it up as an example of something obviously false, so that’s how I’m taking it.
- Because the miracle-causing Agency I believe in doesn’t arbitrarily give people super-strength.
You aren’t even slightly paying attention to what I’m telling you. I am, however, amused by your implication here that some violations of ‘natural law’ (as you’ve yet to define) are major, and others minor.
No, you don’t. I’ve provided an argument for why you don’t, which you are ignoring like everything else I say.
Have you ever witnessed anybody being struck by lightning, or anybody winning millions of dollars in the lottery?
It's obvious that you think so. Someday perhaps you'll notice that educated religious beilevers aren't any more gullible than any other educated person, and perhaps that will give you cause to rethink your ideas. Maybe even someday you could stop arrogantly pretending you know what's going on in other people's heads, and actually ask a question in an attempt to learn something.
Oh, you have evidence against the occurance of miracles? Why didn’t you say so before!?! Feel free to present it.
I’m arguing that there is a virtually no chance whatsoever those miracles happened based on probability and there is a significant probability that the people reporting the miracles were duped.
You, on the other hand, are claiming that there is a greater chance that the miracles actually happened over people getting duped.
Or maybe you are just getting “duped” as well?
Of course you are. And you're basing that argument (whether you realize it or not) on what you think you know about the natural world. Namely, that there is no God capable of producing miracles, and that everything that occured must be a function of 'natural law', which I'm assuming is some version of methodological naturalism. And therein lies the problem.
Under those assumptions, your argument would be perfectly valid. If I believed there was no God, and that everything was a function of naturalism, and despite that I believed in particular miracles [i]anyway[/i] that would be irrational of me. Whenever someone approached me with a story of a miracle, it would be more plausible to assume that they are lying, crazy, mistaken, etc. Again, [i]under the assumption of naturalism[/i]
What you refuse to see is that if a person believes that there [i]is[/i] an Agency capable of performing miracles, namely God, then everything changes. If you need to, think of it as you believing in one set of natural laws N, and me believing in two, N and G. N is natural law as you concieve it, G is acts governed by an act of God.
If you hear about an event which flies in the face of N, you are forced to assume that either N has been violated, or that the event didn't really occur. Chances are in favor of the later.
If on the other hand, I believe in N and G, and I hear about an event which is easily explained by G, then I can believe in it without coming to any conclusions about the violation of N. The fact that [i]you[/i] see it as a violation of N isn't really that important to me- after all, you don't know about G.
Maybe a lot of things. Where’s that evidence against the occurence of miracles?
On the same terms, you are imposing a justification for miracles through “God.” Like God has to do these miracles do prove God’s existence which I think stale reasoning only to empower a philosophy and just increases the probability of fiction.
Think about it, you are justifying God through such miracles, is it any wonder that you believe miracles when you need them as evidence for God?
Is God capable of miracles? Perhaps. Are people capable of being duped in order to believe in miracles as evidence fo God? Definitely.
It’s not a question of whether “God” can conduct miracles as it is a question of whether people can be deceived into believing in miracles when they need that as a justification of their faith.
Who is more likely to be duped? You who laugh at evidence and accept miracles on nothing but hearsay (only to justify your preconceived belief that miracles are essential to prove God) OR I who need evidence and accept what is relevant to my experience which is not relevant to God at all?
The vast majority of theists, as far as I can tell, have never experienced a miracle, so the idea that God needs to continually perform miracles to prove His existence seem spurious.
As far as that goes, you're correct. If someone told me they saw something miraculous, my first thought would be that they were wrong, they were duped, or something like that. Initial skepticism definately pays off. But applying skepticism as a universal standard isn't reasonable either. If you acknowledge that the possibility that God can create miracles, while constructing your beliefs in such a way that you will always deny their occurance, how rational is [i]that[/i]?
Evidence for what? Your entire argument is probability based- a tool for arguments in areas where evidence is lacking, remember?
This is a far cry from your original argument that it was always [i]irrational[/i] in every case to believe a miracle account. It seems like all you've got left is a subtantially weaker argument that skepticism is in some way 'safer' than belief because you don't run the risk of being fooled. Of course that's true of [i]all[/i] things, not just matters of religious belief, so on this I have to agree with you. Your argument is a sort of a skeptic's Pascal's Wager. Nevertheless, it seems quite impossible to me to withold belief about [i]everything[/i],so I can't bring myself to endorse universal skepticism.
Listen to yourself, here you are claiming that you yourself are skeptical initially, but then rationalize that “God” can conduct miracles. You are whipping “God” into the argument to sidetrack from the point only to rationalize that your argument carries more merit. Can “God” conduct miracles is completely irrelevant to the point being the probability relative to a miracle actually occuring in regards to what is witnessable.
It’s not that my argument is “weak,” it’s just that you don’t like the argument because it is contrary to your preconceived belief that such miracles DID occur based on superficial reasoning. Hell, throw “God” into my ability to lift a truck over my head and it is a substantial miracles as well, but we cannot do that because you just pick and choose what you prefer as opposed to what is consistently & empirically realistic.
Your argument is inconsistent on purpose. You want to justify miracles at all costs rather than questioning them objectively. You have already made up your mind that the miracles occured and now are just working backwards to justify them. Whenever you encounter problems with your theory, you use “God” as a scapegoat to cover up the inconsistencies of your argument.
Well I could lift that truck over my head with one arm because God can perform miracles.
You have all the skepticism in the world for the miracle I propose and not a drop for the one’s in the bible. Mine is even more realistically probable, yet you are full of doubt. No consistency in your argument at all.
What do you think the odds are that the miracles happened in which you believe?
'whipping God into the argument'? Are you seriously suggesting that the existence of God has no place in a discussion about miracles!?! As I've already said, you're free to state that God doesn't exist, or that God doesn't influence the occurence of miracles for the purposes of your argument. I'd happily agree with your argument under those assumptions, but those assumptions would make the argument only relevent to atheists, who as a rule don't need to be convinced to not believe in miracles.
Um...actually the ability of God to conduct miracles relates [i]directly[/i] to the probability of miracles occuring.
I'm sorry, but this just appears to be a stumbling block for you. I think we're just going to argue in circles until you find your way past it.
I think you really need to go over your initial assumptions again. The notion that there is no miracle-working God is the underpinning of your whole argument, whether you admit it or not. The fact that I won’t grant you that assumption is what’s causing the roadblock.
This argument is going nowhere. The existence of God has nothing to do with whether PEOPLE reporting the miracles were deceived or not. Nothing at all. “God” isn’t in question, and you are just looking to sidetrack your inconsistent porition. “Miracles” and the people interpreting them are in question and have been the entire time.
If you want to stay on track with the discussion, then I’ll be delighted. However, if you want to drift of the topic into the existence of “God” in order to ignore the probability of error regarding interpretation of miracles, then I’m not interested.
Whether you like it or not, there is a probability that miracles you subscribe to are reports from people being deceived. Believe in God or not, it doesn’t alter the potential for deception. You seem to feel that there is 0 potential for deception regarding the miracles which is why you want to talk about the existence of “God.”
Looks like this debate is coming to a close.
What i never liked about the stories of Jesus and his miracles were that Jesus always told people to keep them kind of hush hush. A lot of the times when he preformed a miracle on someone he told them to tell no one, but some how they wound up in a great book filled with hope. Maybe they were put there to give hope. Why didn’t Jesus write anything down for us!?!?!?
In the long run, what difference would it make?
“How do we know Jesus really said that?”
“How do we know Jesus really wrote that?”