Miracles

[Received]

Hume defined a miracle as something that violates the law of nature, and, summarized by Pojman, "a law of nature is a process whereby certain types of events are (absent intervention) always followed by a definite kind of other event."

What immediately strikes me about this is our strict judgment of an inductive reality, of which these scientific laws certainly are working in accordance with. Given the history of X and how it relates to our world, it follows that Y, being in a similar situation, will continue to do the same task based on our perception and record of the past. What must immediately be realized (and I love this part of philosophy) is that because something is inductive does not follow that it must be ruled as a strict law. It seems that scientific laws are merely stronger theories.  Because something is a fact does not mean that it is a fact; for, as I rant and rave enough as it is, subjective reality may be nowhere near the objective standard.  We can only assume certain things in life to be facts insofar that they may indeed be subject to change if new evidence is found.  This alone is a support for what Craig calls "reasonable faith", for it is faith that immediately links us with the objective reality - being in touch with God - even when our rationality (that which is in the realm of subjective) is yet to catch up.  Faith, as I have argued in the past, is everywhere: it is the hope that is seen in one with the belief that a car will start in the morning, and that God will provide, and everything in-between.

However, it must be known that miracles can be defined two ways:

1) in accordance with the mind of R.H. Fuller, who stated that a miracle is simply an "extraordinary coincidence of a beneficial nature."  He goes on to propose a story about a child who is playing with his toy motor-car and ends up getting his wheel stuck on a railroad track, while a train is coming at full speed towards him.  The child's mother notices this all, yells for her child to notice, when the train ends up stopping a few feet from the child.  The driver had fainted, it turned, for a reason that had nothing to do with the child, and the brakes were applied automatically as his hand ceased to exert pressure on the control lever.  The mother goes on to thank God for intervening.

This, of course, would account for most of the miracles in Christianity.  It is not the event that is supernatural, for it can easily be explained away by natural causes and coincidence; it is the cause itself, behind the scenes, in this case God, that makes the whole process a miracle.  Prayer is the perfect example of this.

2) in accordance with Richard Swinburne, who argued that because there is a supernatural God in existence, we then have perfect reason to believe that the same power that created these laws of nature - still in accordance with induction - can intervene in overriding them.  Certainly the exemplification of this would be in what Hume claimed was contradictory to law; the virgin birth, etc.  It seems that honest science - the old sort nowadays - agrees that the beginning cause in the universe must have been supernatural, for the natural before there was anything was nothing - and not even nothing, for the term 'nothing' implies space, and space is a created entity as well.  Therefore, since the beginning is obviously supernatural - that is, beyond the natural, which it certainly was (there may be mathematical models that show that the universe is uncaused, but this still goes against physics and common sense - out of nothing, nothing comes), we must conclude that God is the foundation of all natural law, and it is at His mercy to do His bidding, for the weakness lies in the fact that all laws are not deductive; they are subject to logical change - as Lewis said, provided that nobody tampers with the process.  And I see no reason to have science supersede logic in any given situation. 

In conclusion, we must all realize that validity is not something science will ever produce, for, given the fact that all laws are subject to anti-induction and are inductive, science is more of a lens than it is a mind: it helps us see the present, not explain why the present came to be.  Therefore, any grounds that empiricists and evidentialists tread on regarding the beginning of the universe other than God, be it an eternal universe, or chance as a force rather than mathematical property, they are no longer in the realm of evidence, but that of speculation, and such is religious thought, for it is not based on the evidence, but a sense of faith.  It does seem oddly peculiar that those who are against God use science as a means to hush Him up.  It turns out that they are using faith in opposition to what is good, and this was all summed up perfectly when Jesus said, regarding His incarnation of God, "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil." (John 3:19).

blessings,

John

 

[Havoc]

Unfortunatly, faith and miracles is a subject that does not point only to the Christian God. All religions with a Diety/ies also have miracles.

 

[Received]

What's your point? Religious pluralism from the premise of miracles is rather weak. I was merely pointing out scientific ideas. I have nothing here regarding Christianity exclusively, except for the explanation as to why some reject God.

 

[Thinker]

Something to think about in relation to this - don't know if this particular example be true, but there are others in the same vein...

A writer made a informal poll of the same couple dozen scientists twice. The first time was `public'; the scientists were in each others presence; the second time was a private ballot type thing. The first time around, all but a couple of the scientists basically stated that psi phenomena was unlikely in the extreme, that there were other explanations, the phenomena was not worth investigating, ect. The second time around, these numbers reversed themselves: most of the scientists did say that there was something to psi phenomena.

 

[humanZ]

I think what atheists need is not so much scientific proof, as they need explanation and comprehension of God. Of course, by a theistic definition, God may be inaccessable to any true explanation, but atheists understand God in their own way--as a mythical being--or more confidently, we remain agnostic and refuse to define God.

 

[LightBearer]

Originally posted by Thinker
Something to think about in relation to this - don't know if this particular example be true, but there are others in the same vein...

A writer made a informal poll of the same couple dozen scientists twice. The first time was `public'; the scientists were in each others presence; the second time was a private ballot type thing. The first time around, all but a couple of the scientists basically stated that psi phenomena was unlikely in the extreme, that there were other explanations, the phenomena was not worth investigating, ect. The second time around, these numbers reversed themselves: most of the scientists did say that there was something to psi phenomena.

 

Now thats what I call "Peer Presure"

 

[Received]

This thread was moved, so it kinda snuck in the science forums. Are there any thoughts on this?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Thinker
Something to think about in relation to this - don't know if this particular example be true, but there are others in the same vein...

A writer made a informal poll of the same couple dozen scientists twice. The first time was `public'; the scientists were in each others presence; the second time was a private ballot type thing. The first time around, all but a couple of the scientists basically stated that psi phenomena was unlikely in the extreme, that there were other explanations, the phenomena was not worth investigating, ect. The second time around, these numbers reversed themselves: most of the scientists did say that there was something to psi phenomena.

Thinker... do you have a source for this? I tend to suspect anecdotes about scientists without having a source. The popular mythology keeps too many of these stories that reflect badly on scientists current. Also, I can't help but wonder whether these scientists were psychologists and what level of education they had. Psychology is often thought of a 'soft' science - not because there aren't any real scientists out there doing good science in that field - but because it relies so much on subjective observations that it is difficult to get hard results the way you can in biology. From having talked to, read about, and read material written by professional psychologists, I get the impression that the field attracts more than its fair share of "quacks" - possibly because it is a softer science, with more wiggle-room for people with "alternative" theories.

 

[Thinker]

Jerry Smith-

This one turned up on another board a couple of weeks ago; I believe a link was given (and I think I went and read the relevant article), but like I said, I don't know how much credence to give to it.

Another, that I read of in print probably a decade ago... another writer was interviewing a paranormal researcher with a definite skeptical bent about this sort of thing, asking him about how he accounted for such and such, and why he was so downright unhappy about another researcher with a more positive take on things. Finally, the guy being interviewed getsup, goes over to a drawer, and pulls out a tray full of bent spoons, forks, ect. He says "It (psi) is real. I bent these myself with psychokinesis".

The writer is startled, and asked "Well, then why do you say its not?"

To which the researcher responded "Because then my reputation as a legitimate scientist would be ruined."

No names were given.

This sort of thing turns up in the writings of Dr Charles Tart (you might want to run a search on him). Basically, he says there is heavy `peer pressure' to minimize results in this sort of thing. (He goes into this in much more detail; run the search).

 

[Jerry Smith]

Thinker: they sound like urban legends... I will run a search on Tart to see what I can dredge up about him. Thanks for the feedback..

 

[Jerry Smith]

Received...

The problem with miracles is not that the conclusion that they could exist is an unreasonable one if the hypothesis of God is correct. Indeed, if there is a God who created the laws of nature, it is not unreasonable at all to believe that he can contravene them at any time.

The problem is that any epistemology that allows an induction or deduction that depends on the existence of the miraculous must forfeit its purpose, or forfeit its claim to rationality.

On the one hand, it can accept miraculous explanations, and admit that because it accepts them it must forfeit any ability to discern truth from non-truth (because the miraculous can always trick us by masquerading as the normal). On the other, it can pretend to have power for discerning truth, but fail to recognize that any potential truth it might reveal could equally well be false if there exists a supernatural agent who wishes us to believe falsely.

In order to hope to be able to improve our knowledge and to discern truth with better than random chances, we must assume that miracles are non-existent or extremely rare.

If we assume their existence, we must assume also that they are very scarce.

If we assume their absence, we have to make no further assumptions - the assumpion of a non-miraculous universe is somewhat more economical.

The most rational position is to assume neither, and let only the propositions that must be confirmed or denied depending on the existence of the miraculous remain forever unknown. Moreover, the most rational position would "keep its fingers crossed" in hopes that the universe is free of miracles.

edited to add: Perhaps "most rational" is not the appropriate term. I should have termed that "most safe." I actually am more confident in denying the existence of miracles since their status cannot be empirically confirmed.. even though it is technically a less "safe" position.

 

[Received]

And miracles of the stronger kind would be rather rare - that is, those that involve the seeming disobeying of the inductive laws of science. I would wonder exactly how 'rare' such instances must be. If you've ever read naturalist claims of Christ's supposed resurrection, you would see the humor that is involved in twisting things as they are. The only way that stronger miracles cannot exist is if there is no God whatsoever; claiming there can be no God from the supposed contradiction of science that miracles imply is the wrong way of searching out things. The miracles of the weaker kind would not be disobeying the inductive laws of nature - they are merely a matter of the work 'behind the scenes', as it was presented with the train and child story.

Naturalism as a whole - the idea of 'nature taking it's course' and nothing unordinary in accordance with such a course existing - is an incomplete view. Certainly it may be cogent, but this does not rule out possibility. The laws of nature never impressed anything into beginning, but are only the pattern - from what we can thus far tell - by which things must work. I am not anti-law - certainly not. I am only trying to prove that opposition to the laws of nature is not impossible.

blessings,

John

 

[Jerry Smith]

Naturalism as a whole - the idea of 'nature taking it's course' and nothing unordinary in accordance with such a course existing - is an incomplete view.

Not demonstrably so. Of course, if miracles are allowed - and all the epistemological problems that come with them - then philosophical materialism would then be at best incomplete. Still, the miraculous remains unknowable, and no positive negation of naturalism is rationally possible.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Thinker...

About the reason I smell a rat in this:

A writer made a informal poll of the same couple dozen scientists twice. The first time was `public'; the scientists were in each others presence; the second time was a private ballot type thing. The first time around, all but a couple of the scientists basically stated that psi phenomena was unlikely in the extreme, that there were other explanations, the phenomena was not worth investigating, ect. The second time around, these numbers reversed themselves: most of the scientists did say that there was something to psi phenomena.

First - the "writer" made an "informal" poll. That says a lot. If there were a phenomenon there worth documenting, it wouldn't be difficult to set up a controlled experiment and publish some real results that would reveal this type of thing.

Second - there is plenty of motivation to set up a control and document this because...

Third - after the research is published & the scientists realize that those who give credence to psi are in the majority, not the other way around - and when they realize they don't stand to lose stature for doing so, they are likely to come out publicly in favor of psi research - nobel prize winning material if documented!

The other anecdote just sounds too convenient and made up. I broke my promise & didn't look up Dr. Tart, but there are numerous people out there who want psi to be real & put together anecdotal evidence and "informal" polls to try to convince themselves and others of the reality of it. The conspiracy theory of psi suppression is just too easy a cop-out.

 

[Received]

Not demonstrably so. Of course, if miracles are allowed - and all the epistemological problems that come with them - then philosophical materialism would then be at best incomplete. Still, the miraculous remains unknowable, and no positive negation of naturalism is rationally possible.

Only in accordance with the maxim that miracles are merely laws that haven't been discovered yet. This is, of course, a philosophical solution that naturalists and materialists can claim.  However, I am not sure this would be worth acception, for if the naturalist claims laws to be those events that nature must comply, an 'unfounded law' should be found already, given the age and course of this part of the uinverse, and the cogent claim that we have not 'found' any new laws of such dramatic signifigance lately.  We don't see people rising from the dead enough to claim it as law, and this is the conundrum that naturalists holding dear the claim that miracles are merely laws undiscovered must hold.  It turns out that miracles (of the stronger kind) cannot be allowed in accordance with naturalism. At best, materialism is not incomplete with the existence of miracles (of the stronger kind); it is incompatible, because it is in lack.  Materialism is a limited science, for it excludes the possibility of the greater; as is the same with evidentialism, empiricism, etc. 

I would admit that the miraculous would remain unknowable, but only under two reasons: 1) In regards to the stronger sort of miracles: because of limited materialism, which cannot judge the existence of something that works beyond the realm of the pattern of the laws of nature, and 2) In regards to the weaker sort of miracles: such miracles, of which involve normal events that are justified as natural, are deemed 'miraculous' only because of the situation by which they happened - too coincidential to be true (as with the case of the child). It turns out that science is impotent in this area.  It would be extremely difficult in itself to claim all miralces of this weaker sort are not miracles, for you must convince the one who had the experience that it is not as they considered it (as well as the fact that the God this person is attributing such an event to is nonexistent!); and being subjective creatures, external suggestions are simply inappropriate - those making judgements outside of the one experiencing the miracle itself are not on grounds to judge, for they have not experienced.  These miracles would be more psychological than material, but miracles nonetheless, for it is the person 'behind the scenes' that makes the entire natural event divine.

The 'incomplete view' that I was associating materialism/naturalism with simply in light of the fact that there are miracles. Of course, you could simply reply that miracles are not in existence, and be justified by your own judgments. But this still does not rule out the limitations of science and the actions of God in miracles.  To finish things completely, you must rule out all evidence and argument for God as fallicious, including the miraculous events of both kinds: the resurrection of Jesus, the claims of a man walking after being lame today, those in accoradance with the child and train story, and many many more.  It is not logically impossible to do so; it is, however, statistically impossible, at least in my opinion.

But if you still claim materialism and science is all there is, you must rule out philosphy as well, for it is not material, nor is it empirical - it is the lens by which we judge the world.  You would immediately run into the problem of trying to prove the existence of science itself; for if you cannot prove it philosophically (which is the only way to prove it), then you cannot prove it at all - science cannot prove itself.

Science has it's limitations, and thus it is the same with the laws of nature.  A being 'beyond' science is perfectly capable of making actions outside of such laws without breaking them; or breaking them entirely because they are inductive and incomplete, the pattern by which things must apply given no interference.

blessings,

John

 

[Jerry Smith]

Received... I meant to reply to you, but I got distracted in some other threads. Of course there is no way to empirically rule out the possibility of the violation of natural law. My point is only that if natural law is malleable, then a coherent epistemology becomes much more clumsy.

By the way - on what you call the small miracles: is there a method for distinguishing between these and coincidences that are explained by the law of large numbers?

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
The problem with miracles

I think I follow what your saying. We all see miracles all the time. The question then becomes, what is our response to seeing a miracle. You suggested three different ways we could respond.

Perhaps most people just accept a miracle as being a natural part of the universe and just like everything else they see, they do not give God the honor and the glory for what He has done.

Of course when dealing with miracles that are a little bit less common. Like an Aids patient having a total recovery. Those kind of miracles seem to be a little bit more difficult to explain away.

 

[Received]

I would definitly agree that our epistemology becomes rather clumsy and incoherant. Like with what JohnR7 posted with the 'miraculous' cure of aids given a certain situation. Certainly this is, by scientific understanding, impossible. But it still happens.

But with the small miracles, I am ignorant of the law of numbers. Inform me please. But if I am following your skepticism correctly, I understand that there would definitly be a difficultly in realizing when such miracles do occur. However, this is also irrelevant. Such miracles would do solely with faith, and have no violations with the laws of nature, but are merely enlightenment and happenstance events that occur to better a human being, according to him, 'beyond coincidence', and thus a working of God. Perhaps they realize this according to the bible, or simply as a rare event such as was posted with the child, following a prayer of some sort.

blessings,

John

 

[lithium.]

The whole problem with "Miracles" is that Christians say they are from there god and Muslims say there from there god, and etc... But I don't see why people would jump to a conclusion like that. We know our body can do some amazing things like healings. But people don't want to try to understand what happens they would rather say that the god they believe in did it. It's just I see that as being lazy, and not wanting to find the real answer.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Received
Such miracles would do solely with faith, and have no violations with the laws of nature,

Death and disease is a violation of the laws of nature. For someone to be healed and their health restored, is for the laws of nature to be restored.