About Miracles

[size=100]I’ll have to turn these old dribblings into an essay in the next couple of weeks but this piece is so full of holes and old, that I’ve decided to post it here hoping I’ll get a fresh perspective on it. Comments, suggestions, opinions, and/or criticism are more than welcomed.[/size]

An event is usually said to be a miracle if there is no apparent natural cause for it. For example, if someone was driving down a street and a winning lottery ticket flew into their open driver side window and then landed on their face, they would probably say that it was a miracle, because that person would probably not have known the causes which led up to the ticket entering his car. But not knowing the cause of an event, even if favorable, can’t be the only requisite for an event to be established as a miracle because then all effects of which we don’t know the causes to would be considered miracles, thus rendering the word miracle too broad to mean anything; so broad and vague that the word unknown would do a better job at conveying the concept. Thus this simple definition of a miracle is unfit for the purposes of a philosophical investigation. A miracle is in other times said to have happened when the possibilities for an event are high, but as with the previews definition of miracle, this one falls short of being precise. High probability, apart from being subject dependent, does not mean impossibility, in that even though an event is thought of as happening only very rarely, it can happen nevertheless.

I believe a miracle is best defined not as an unexplained or unexplainable or a highly unlikely event, but as an event that has the divine as its cause. In that for example if we were to be presented with an event that does not have an apparent natural cause, in other words if we were presented with an event we could not currently explain, then that lack of knowledge may serve, at the very most, only as an indicator that the event in question could have had a divine cause, but not as premise for it. An event can be said to be a miracle only if proof that the divine was the cause of the event in question is provided. Showing that we do not, or perhaps that we can not, know the cause of an event only goes to definitely show the limits of our current knowledge; not that the divine had a hand in the event, even if it really did, which it may have.

Now that I have a working definition for a miracle, the next step in identifying an event as a miracle is identifying and qualifying the divine, from which we could then positively identify an event as having had that divine we identified as it’s cause and thus be a miracle or not.

Suppose we were faced with the following situation: we are an alien being who just had a glimpse of a golf ball flying above some trees on a golf course. To know, or even suppose, that a human could have caused the ball to fly over the trees we, the aliens, would have to know that first, humans existed and second, that of some of their attributes one is capable of making the ball fly as it did over the trees. We could not infer that the golf ball flew because a human if we did not know of the existence of humans. Even if in fact a human did cause the golf ball to fly over the trees we, the aliens, would not be able to infer a human did it with the current amount of knowledge we had. It would be highly improbable and just plain absurd if we could accurately pinpoint the cause of an event to a thing we did not know the existence nor of any attributes. Any hypothesis given to be the cause of the event in question would be as justifiable as the next. Similarly, to know that an event was miraculous, in that the divine causes it, we would have to know the divine and some of it’s attributes from which we could then say it could have done it or that it is known to do such a thing and that therefore the event had a divine cause and is in all probability, or to the best of our knowledge, a miracle.

The problem here is that some - I would say most - religious cultures believe their divine is unknowable, and therefore when they are faced with a situation in which they think the divine was the cause for some event, they are only groundlessly speculating, because if they do not know the divine and some of that divine’s attributes, then they cannot soundly or justifiably state that that divine they don’t know was the cause of an effect they can’t at the moment explain. As for other religions in which the divine is said to be knowable and known, then an event can be safely and soundly concluded as being a miracle, although it need not be said to be supernatural, because if a knowable divine caused an event to happen, then that divine must have been natural for us to know it, which means that the event in question had a natural cause. In other words, an event can be soundly concluded to being a miracle only if it’s divine is knowable, and because of that, natural. But if the divine is said to be unnatural or supernatural then a miracle can’t ever be identified as such since the unnatural/supernatural cannot possibly be known by the natural.

An event can then only be speculated as to having had the divine as it’s cause, but not justified as being so – at least not more so than any other proposed unknown thing. For example, imagine someone faced with a situation they can’t explain, who then proceeds to explain it with a force they doesn’t understand. The chances that the person was actually right in their guessing are staggering. Even if the person guessed right, the person could not possibly justify it. If the person guessed right, neither he, nor anyone else, except for the divine, would know that he was right. As far as any reasonable person should be concerned, the person would have merely juxtaposed the cause he doesn’t understand with the effect he can’t explain with no argument linking the two. It could just as justifiably be that another, non-divine though unknown force caused the unexplainable event, because the unknown is not only limited to the divine. The unknown is is simply the territory bordering the known.

Ultimately, if we define a miracle as the effect of a divine cause, then that cause must necessarily be known for us to soundly and justifiably conclude the event was a miracle, otherwise we would be just downright guessing that one of the many things we don’t know caused something we can’t explain with current knowledge. Any other thing we don’t understand could with as much justification as the divine hypothesis be said to be the cause. Thus I am faced with a paradox when trying to justify the idea of miracles because an event need have the divine as it’s cause to be a miracle, but for a cause to be divine it must be supernatural and thus unknowable (and thus unknown), and since the divine is divine precisely because it is unknowable, i.e. outside of nature, we can’t therefore possibly justify the idea that an event was a miracle. In other words, if a God known is no God, then an event known to have had God as its cause is no miracle. Thus, given the unknowable nature of the divine, an event can not be soundly or justifiably said to a miracle.

fordham.edu/halsall/mod/hume-miracles.html

-Imp

Thanks

I wonder if you could separate a ‘personal cause’ from a ‘divine cause’. Take your lottery ticket example. If we add to that that the person was in dire financial straights, on the verge of losing their home, and the lottery ticket came in a timely way so that it seemed as though it was delivered by a benefactor, that would be a reason why people would call something miraculous. It seems to me that that’s an aspect of the miraculous that is overlooked by people examining it on both sides- it’s not just any old inexplicable thing that happens. It seems like that would work towards your paradox as well, since we know persons.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that if the divine is posited as a unknown and nothing more, then there’s no justifiable reason to ascribe some event to it’s agency. I like that argument.

I’m not sure what you’re saying. What is a personal cause and why does it matter to miracles? What exactly is the aspect that is missed?

As I stated in my OP, although admittedly only briefly, it does not matter whether an [as of yet] unexplained event works to someone’s favor.

The only way to justify the belief that an event was a miracle is if proof is provided for 1)the divines existence, and of 2)the divine’s actual intervention in the event in question.

Otherwise, saying the “divine” had a hand in an event is only a guess - no better than any other – which even if true, cannot be justified as being so, and any reasonable person, any person who’s standard of belief is a little higher than a kneejerk first (or second, or third) guess, should not believe it.

In lack of these two proofs, all talk about miracles becomes a matter of possibility, and thus moot. Off course it is possible the divine exists, and off course there is a possibility that it had a hand in the event. Even if a naturalistic explanation was presented for the event, that would not eliminate the possibility that the divine caused it.

Here’s how I imagine an argument lacking in the above mentioned two proofs to go. (I neglected to represent the argument that states the unexplained event couldn’t have been a miracle)
“Could the divine have caused it?”
“Sure could have.”
“Alright then, goodbye.”
The end.
Though this is not limited to the divine. If the word “divine” was replaced by any other thing, the conversation would not be different.

Erlir

The benevolent aspect, and the suggestion of agency. Like I said, a miracle is not just any old extremely weird thing that happens. Your example of the winning lottery ticket blowing in through an open car window is not just an example of a purported miracle because it’s very unlikely, but because it’s very unlikely AND it’s something that gives the impression ‘someone up there’s looking out for me’ to the recipient. A duck blowing in through an open car window would be extremely unlikely too, but I think a person would only be tempted to call it miraculous if they had an urgent need for a duck at the time.

The reason why this is potentially important is because when you say here:

Your basing that on a miracle being an 'extremely unlikely event'.   But a miracle isn't that. A miracle is an extremely unlikely event [i]such that[/i] it seems to have been caused by a benefactor, specifically in cases when no human benefactor was available.  You need all three of those factors to have a miracle- and not just according to me, I think that's really the most standard application of the term. 

I’m not saying your argument works or doesn’t work, that’s not really my business in this thread. I’m just saying I think there’s more to the definition of ‘miracle’ than you’ve addressed, and addressing it could improve the essay and argument. At the very least, it affects the impact of the divine being unknowable. The fact that only a narrow type of very unlikely event is called a miracle implies that some qualities about the divine are alleged after all. There are people who believe that God is completely 100% unknowable, and they don’t attribute miracles to Him (or, they shouldn’t) for exactly the reasons you describe.

That definition strikes me as incredibly anthropocentric and moreover, useless.

Here is my definition of a miracle.

I realize to be more concise I should have written “[…]but as an event that is shown to have had the divine as it’s cause.”

That a highly unlikely event was beneficial to someone does not in any reasonable way point to the divine causing it, because for one thing, you would have to show that the divine is/does good (not just take it in stride - axiomatically, as you do) and that the divine even exists. It’s just a guess then to say that an event was a miracle in lack of the aforementioned proof. A guess no better than any other.

The only reasonable way to justify the belief that an event was a miracle is by showing proof that the divine exists, and that the divine could and did cause that event. What effects it had on you or your dog, or anything for that matter, whether it was beneficial to anybody or not, does not matter to the argument. An event can be harmful to everyone and a miracle if someone shows that the divine caused it (thereby implying that the divine exists and is not necessarily benevolent).

I realize that, and that is why in the first paragraphs I make a point to show why the typical usage of the word miracle is useless (or rather baseless) for the purposes of a philosophical investigation. I went on to conclude that the only way to justify the belief that any given event was a miracle is through showing that the divine caused it. I specifically and vehemently disagree[d] with the argument that the event in question – i.e. whether it seems unlikely or not, or beneficial or not, really matters to the argument for miracles, because in determining a miracle only the cause need and should be pursued.

Firstly, there is a difference between knowable and known. They could claim that God is knowable but not know God. Secondly, in my essay I state that it is only these people, or rather, only the people who claim God is knowable and known, that can justify the belief that miracles (divine-caused events) exist. All others – all those who do not have a conception of what they claim caused the event, are merely guessing when they say that thing they have not a conception of caused the event in question.

Again, to put it short and sweet. What the event was does not matter. That scientists all agree that it had a natural cause does not matter. That statistics show it was unlikely does not matter. That it was beneficial does not matter. The only thing that matters when attempting to show that an event was a miracle is proof that the divine caused it. In lack of that, any guess is as good as another, and hence unjustified.

Paradimensional technologies = miracles.

Time travel, for example, would be a big miracle. It could control the future and prophecy then make it all happen.

Why?

If man manages to develop a machine with which he travels through time, then how is that any different than say, a toaster or something of the like. By that same logic, flight was a miracle to the folks in the 18th century. Atom Bombs to the 19th. Etc. Is that it? Is anything deemed incredibly difficult or unlikely, a miracle if it happens?

What makes a miracle? What’s a miracle according to you? In my scribbles up above, I define miracle as an event having been caused by God…you care to add on to that…criticism or otherwise?