Miracles

[Gaunt]

On the Naturalism thread, Dilettante made a comment that seems fairly common with regards to miracles:

it would take some extraordinary evidence for me to ascribe some event to a miraculous intervention. There's too much deception and self-deception in this world to hastily rule it out. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Regarding this, what do you all think about Hume's argument against the evidential value of miracles? Hume argues that we should NEVER believe miracles occur, even if they in fact do, because violation miracles (or events that are physically impossible, even if they are logically possible, rather than merely improbable) are the least logically possible event there could be. Since it is irrational to believe the less likely explanation over the more likely, one should not believe that miracles have occurred. No matter how outlandish the naturalistic explanation is, it is more probable than a violation miracle occurring simply because it is physically possible where a miracle is, by definition, not. Even if we observe the miracle for ourselves, we should not believe that it is a miracle, according to Hume, because our senses are capable of being deceived (eg mirage, hallucinations due to lack of food, sleep, stress, etc), and it is more likely that the problem lies in our senses or interpretation than that a violation of natural laws has occurred.

[BeHereNow]

I get to the same place by a different route. I dislike Hume’s path (as you presented it) for several reasons.

For example, I dislike this statement: [Since it is irrational to believe the less likely explanation over the more likely].
I know that the less likely, happens every day. If a team is predicted to win, and it loses, the less likely has happened. The highly improbable also happens within range of most of our senses. The “freak” occurrence that happens from time to time. To me Hume wants us to disbelieve miracles on a probability and statistical basis. I’m not comfortable with that.

Now I like this point: [No matter how outlandish the naturalistic explanation is, it is more probable than a violation miracle occurring simply because it is physically possible where a miracle is, by definition, not.]
I like it because I start with the basic premise [the supernatural does not exist].

I don’t like this either: [Even if we observe the miracle for ourselves, we should not believe that it is a miracle, according to Hume, because our senses are capable of being deceived (eg mirage, hallucinations due to lack of food, sleep, stress, etc),].
We need to act as though or senses do not lie. We need to be aware of the possibility, and take great precautions to prevent any deception, but in the end we need to confirm that our sense have functioned properly. For those momentary, life changing events, that can not be tested or replayed, we determine what we believe the state of our senses were, and if we determine there was no deception of senses, we then spend our time looking for the natural explanation, because one certainly exists.
If, on the other hand, we determine our senses might have been deceived (tripping, drunk, delusional) at the moment of the event, then we discard the information our senses give us concerning those things which “could not be”. If a flying, fire breathing purple people eater comes towards me, my best course of action is to ignore it.

I disregard all miracles out of hand because the supernatural does not exist.
I need no further rationale or reasoning.
JMO

[Dilettante]

Some people, C.S. Lewis among them, have accused Hume of circular reasoning in his argument on miracles. It is true that, if what Hume had meant was that "miracles can't be real because they would violate the laws of nature", that would certainly be a poor argument. The conclusion is assumed, since miracles are precisely violations of the laws of nature by definition. But if I haven't misunderstood Hume, he never said that we could be 100% sure of the regularity of nature. I don't think Hume meant to say that miracles are by definition impossible. As I interpret it, all Hume is saying is that the probability of a miracle really happening is so low that the best rule of thumb is to assume a natural explanation. The chances that we may turn out to be wrong are, according to Hume, negligible.

But just in case I'm not interpreting Hume correctly, here's Hume's entire quote for all forum members to examine:
David Hume on miracles:

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation....

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 foregoing reasoning we have supposed, that the testimony, upon which a miracle is founded, may possibly amount to an entire proof, and that the falsehood of that testimony would be a real prodigy: But it is easy to shew, that we have been a great deal too liberal in our concession, and that there never was a miraculous event established on so full an evidence.

From David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, L. A. Selby Bigge, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902), pp. 114-16.

[ST88]

For example, I dislike this statement: [Since it is irrational to believe the less likely explanation over the more likely].
I know that the less likely, happens every day. If a team is predicted to win, and it loses, the less likely has happened. The highly improbable also happens within range of most of our senses. The “freak” occurrence that happens from time to time. To me Hume wants us to disbelieve miracles on a probability and statistical basis. I’m not comfortable with that.

I don't think that's what he's saying at all. To be fair, this is not a 25%/75% proposition that the "less/more likely" language might imply. It's not outside the realm of experience for an underdog to win a game, for example, and I'd hazard a guess that this happens around 25% of the time. The point is that out of all possible explanations, the miracle is the least likely explanation.

I don’t like this either: [Even if we observe the miracle for ourselves, we should not believe that it is a miracle, according to Hume, because our senses are capable of being deceived (eg mirage, hallucinations due to lack of food, sleep, stress, etc),].
We need to act as though or senses do not lie. We need to be aware of the possibility, and take great precautions to prevent any deception, but in the end we need to confirm that our sense have functioned properly. For those momentary, life changing events, that can not be tested or replayed, we determine what we believe the state of our senses were, and if we determine there was no deception of senses, we then spend our time looking for the natural explanation, because one certainly exists.
If, on the other hand, we determine our senses might have been deceived (tripping, drunk, delusional) at the moment of the event, then we discard the information our senses give us concerning those things which “could not be”. If a flying, fire breathing purple people eater comes towards me, my best course of action is to ignore it.

I'm not sure that what you're smoking is what I'm smoking, because the altered state of mind is usually altered to the degree that we are willing to believe our senses without skepticism, in the moment. In general, I would agree that trusting our senses is a great way to do things, and the point about disbelieving our senses while tripping drunk is fine. However, the problem comes in when we are in the process of being delusional -- sleep deprived, poor diet, wandering in the desert for God knows how long, etc. I think most of us have had dreams that seemed real while we were in them, but were ridiculous upon awakening. The part of our brains that tells us intellectually that something "could not be" is also affected by the delusional condition. In this case, when the one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eater swoops down upon a delusional person, the delusional person will duck regardless if the scene makes any sense.

I think Hume makes a great point about skepticism. We should always assume a natural explanation because the supernatural explanation is worse than speculation about the natural world. If there's one thing Hume hates it's theological philosophers, who constantly apply the miracle explanation to incidental or coincidental events and processes; evoking God where none is needed.

[BeHereNow]

ST88: I don't think that's what he's saying at all. To be fair, this is not a 25%/75% proposition that the "less/more likely" language might imply. It's not outside the realm of experience for an underdog to win a game, for example, and I'd hazard a guess that this happens around 25% of the time. The point is that out of all possible explanations, the miracle is the least likely explanation.

Yes, now I see. The least likely explanation, not the least likely event. I misread gaunt.

I'm not sure that what you're smoking is what I'm smoking, because the altered state of mind is usually altered to the degree that we are willing to believe our senses without skepticism, in the moment. In general, I would agree that trusting our senses is a great way to do things, and the point about disbelieving our senses while tripping drunk is fine. However, the problem comes in when we are in the process of being delusional -- sleep deprived, poor diet, wandering in the desert for God knows how long, etc. I think most of us have had dreams that seemed real while we were in them, but were ridiculous upon awakening. The part of our brains that tells us intellectually that something "could not be" is also affected by the delusional condition. In this case, when the one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eater swoops down upon a delusional person, the delusional person will duck regardless if the scene makes any sense.

Well, I believe I understand what you are saying, and I only agree to a certain extent.

[The part of our brains that tells us intellectually that something "could not be" is also affected by the delusional condition. In this case, when the one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eater swoops down upon a delusional person, the delusional person will duck regardless if the scene makes any sense.]

The delusional condition certainly can overcome our better judgment. Some things are unlikely to be believed even so. It is unlikely one will be deluded into thinking (convincingly) that they are 50 feet tall. It is unlikely one will think they are the opposite sex. Your “swooping down” adds credibility that I will act as if the delusion is real, but I would say this is an instinctual reaction, no time to consider ‘is it real or not?’. My less urgent “comes towards me” does allow for a considered opinion. Even in delusional states there is a hierarchy of what we accept or reject. A college dude out to get lucky at the local bar will only require a few beers to see a quite attractive young lady that the next morning will seem quite plain. In other matters, he will not be deluded so easily. Wishful thinking does wonders.

There is no doubt that under sufficiently delusional states we may believe truly anything. The mind allows for that. Concerning miracles, I would not argue that in the moment, sufficiently delusional, it will never be accepted as real. Sufficiently delusional means it will happen, and that is a possibility. I will argue that it is unlikely that such a thing would happen, for a person who is predisposed to not accept the supernatural.

The mind is capable of being trained, as I’m sure you will agree.

During the 60’s there were many scare stories of recreational drug users being delusional and believing bizarre things about themselves and their surroundings. Secular miracles so to say. I decided that I wanted to expand my mind, but not lose it. I never had a bad trip. I was never deluded into thinking my visions were real. Now I did come close, no doubt about that. If I thought the M&M’s might be bugs, I would investigate, ask others, etc. I saw many inanimate things appear to come to life, but I was able to realize it only appeared this way.
Early on, when peaking, I would often not know which trip I was on [Is this really my third trip, or am I still on my first trip?]. I could not make a decision. I was not deluded into thinking I was still on my first trip, but I realized it was a possibility. I remained skeptical even when peaking on the best orange sunshine known to man. If that does not qualify as an altered state, nothing does (IMO).
I had fun watching the hairs on my arm turn into worms and crawl out of my skin, because I realized it was a trick of the eye and mind.
The interruption of persistence of vision that causes trails was as much fun as a roller coaster.
I also became better than average at convincing others that their experiences were perception tricks, illusions, not reality.

So I would hold myself up, as one among many, who is not willing to believe the senses without skepticism, even in the moment of a delusional state. You say [ because the altered state of mind is usually altered to the degree. . .’] and I accept this as a general rule about the population at large. But this group of persons is predisposed to believe the supernatural straight out of the gate. Their skepticism will quickly fall aside. Of course in may cases there will be no skepticism at all.

Now organic delusional states are another matter. The rational may cease to exist. Within “typical” delusional states that present miracles as real, there are threads of rationality which, because of our hierarchy of beliefs, can override appearances and let skepticism win over acceptance. So your “usually” becomes my “rarely”, for particular individuals.

So now I have the problems of not knowing if my delusion is organic, where all rationality has disappeared, or something more innocent. Speaking for myself, I have decided that it does not matter. I will never wonder whether or not I am organically delusional or someone slipped me a Mickey. Now of course if I am organically impaired, I will not be capable of wondering this. I mean to say that some may spend time wondering “Am I losing my mind? Did I really see that?”, whereas I would not waste my time with such musings. My hierarchy of beliefs makes this extremely unlikely, though of course, not impossible.

So whether our choice of smoke is the same or not, those who accept the supernatural will see it around every corner, those who disregard the supernatural out of hand, will not usually be deceived even when delusional.
You seem to be one who has experienced may things, delusion included. I have to wonder when the last time was when you were deluded into accepting a "miracle" as truth.

I think Hume makes a great point about skepticism. We should always assume a natural explanation because the supernatural explanation is worse than speculation about the natural world. If there's one thing Hume hates it's theological philosophers, who constantly apply the miracle explanation to incidental or coincidental events and processes; evoking God where none is needed.

Not to find fault with gaunt, but Dilettante’s post cleared the air quite a bit. I have not found the chinks in Hume’s argument as I did when presented by gaunt. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since I last read Hume first hand. I chose not to revisit, but rather accept gaunt’s recounting.

As a footnote, I find the “mind expanding” (for lack of a better expression) uses or psychedelics to be far superior to the recreational uses. For medicinal purposes only, so to say, with entertainment value as a free ride.

[BeHereNow]

I’m not sure what Hume’s motivation was on this issue.
If his argument is aimed towards those who believe in the supernatural, I find his argument weak by today expectations. If you allow the premise of the supernatural, it is difficult indeed to get away from miracles.
I think the time better spent on disregarding the supernatural, a higher premise, but possible just as easy to argue against.
As I recall, his day was entrenched in the rational, whereas today much is taken for granted. Rational appeals were in vogue, and sometimes accepted just to be trendy. Today the supernatural is trendy (e.g. new age). The argument might need to be tailored differently.

I doubt we could convince our board members who accept the supernatural, to reject miracles based on Hume’s argument.
I would think it easier to change the supernatural believer, into a “Deist, prime creator, who needs the supernatural” believer.

It may be that the miracles are simply the manisfestations of the supernatural, and if one goes, the other goes. I assume them to be seperate.

[Overcomer]

Here's one man's answers to the question about the possibility of miracles:

Logic and miracles
By Matt Slick

It would be basically illogical to state that miracles cannot occur. This is because in order to logically state that miracles cannot occur, a person must either know all things in the universe so that he can rightfully state miracles cannot occur, or he must have some logical proof why miracles cannot occur, or possess a sufficiently sophisticated knowledge base to conclude the miraculous cannot occur, etc. Furthermore, it is not enough to state that there is no evidence for the miraculous since a person's experiential base is limited. It may very well be that miracles have occurred and this person is simply not aware of it.

Therefore, at best someone could simply say "I do not believe that miracles occur because (insert reason)." This leaves open the possibility that they may occur. And if they might indeed occur, why not have the possibility that Jesus who claimed to be God (John 8:58 with Exodus 3:14), who fulfilled Old Testament prophecies (i.e., Psalm 22:11-18; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6, Micah 5:1-2, etc.), who predicted his own death and resurrection (John 2:19-21; ), appeared to people after his public execution (Luke 24:39; John 20:25-28.), did indeed actually rise from the dead? Since the eyewitness accounts have been accurately transmitted to us, would it not be logical to believe the witnesses who described what they saw? It would seem so.

You may read the whole article here:

http://www.carm.org/evidence/miracles.htm

If you question the reliability of the Bible and the eyewitness accounts, here's a synopsis of the evidence re: reliability:

http://www.carm.org/demo2/bible/focus.htm

[Nyril]

It would be basically illogical to state that miracles cannot occur. This is because in order to logically state that miracles cannot occur, a person must either know all things in the universe so that he can rightfully state miracles cannot occur

Incorrect.

I can safely say there isn't any ketchup in the house without absolute knowledge of the contents of the house. I only need to look in the fridge to see if we don't have ketchup. What you're saying is that we need to drill holes into the floor, dismantle the TV to look inside, check the sock drawer, etc...

Why do I need absolute knowledge to claim that miracles cannot occur?

[ST88]

It would be basically illogical to state that miracles cannot occur. This is because in order to logically state that miracles cannot occur, a person must either know all things in the universe so that he can rightfully state miracles cannot occur, or he must have some logical proof why miracles cannot occur, or possess a sufficiently sophisticated knowledge base to conclude the miraculous cannot occur, etc. Furthermore, it is not enough to state that there is no evidence for the miraculous since a person's experiential base is limited. It may very well be that miracles have occurred and this person is simply not aware of it.

The point here is not that miracles are impossible. The point is that when you're trying to describe a phenomenon, the default setting is not Miracle. The determination that a miracle has occured can only be made after all natural possibilities have been exhausted. It is therefore an exclusively deductive process. This means that it is not possible to prove that a miracle has occurred, it is only possible to believe that all rational explanations have been exhausted. For myself, because I have been exposed to many wonderful and strange properties of the universe and of the brain that are scientifically valid and exceptionally weird -- in my lifetime -- I am not able to conclude that all rational explanations will ever be exhausted. There are too many scientific discoveries happening every year. Out-of-body experiences, for example, can be explained by brain activity. Ghosts can be explained by very-low frequency sound waves. Both of these discoveries happened within the last three years. To me, it is reasonable to assume that many miracles described in the past are the results of a witness who was not aware of a particular natural phenomenon, like ball lightning. Others are lies or mythic exaggerations, but the default setting in previous eras of history was Miracle, so it was easier to assert the miraculous. No longer.

[LillSnopp]

Well, this is an easy one, miracle, according to a regular dictionary means:

1. Any amazing or wonderful occurrence
2. A marvellous event manifesting a supernatural act of God

As no God exist, we can exclude nr2, and then we have nr1 left. What would a "wonderful occurrence" and "amazing" mean? I thought that was relative.

And looking at Wikipedia´s definition, you get the same, religion would be involved.


So no, Miracle as defined here, cant exist, as no God exist. Things that you might get surprised from happening, might happen. Like a Creationist using his mind (this would cease is Creationism), or someone jumping from a 20 story house and survive.



And ah, as ST88 said (didnt read it erlier), you would not define it as a not Miracle, because this would simply not exist by the contemporary definition of it (act of God, supernatural osv).