Miracles

Post Reply New Topic

Is a rational belief in miraculous occurrence possible?

Let's take a particularly well-known argument(paraphrased), one that I think was first promoted by David Hume:

1) Miracles are things that violate what we consider to be laws or principles governing nature.
2) That which we consider to be a law or principle of nature is that which has been so well empirically established over an extended period of time, that violations are extraordinarily improbable.
3) Because violations of these laws are incredibly improbable, any explanation not involving a violation of this law is more probable than a miracle, all else equal.
4) Therefore, no level of evidence can establish a miraculous occurrence.

Is this argument valid? Are there other standards by which a belief in miracles is possible? What is your personal stance on belief in miracles?

Me Vs Hume. Hardly seems fair. I'll give it a go.

In 1919 Arthur Eddington observed light bending around the sun during a solar eclipse. According to all laws of nature known to Hume, this could not have happened. Therefore, according to Hume, it didn't happen.

But it does move...

I still don't think the belief in miracles is entirely rational, but I'm not convinced by this argument.

I'll think some more about this.

Nonsense. Hume had nothing to say for or against light bending around the sun. Newton would have favored the idea since he believed that light consisted of particles ( this would eventually become the view in quantum physics).

ruveyn

You're attacking the wrong part of my argument.

The nature of light wasn't decided until Einstein, and after Maxwell it was all but certain that light was a wave, and unaffected by gravity. Maybe Hume's time wasn't the best example, but I think my point still stands.

"In 1919 Arthur Eddington observed light bending around the sun during a solar eclipse. According to all laws of nature known to Maxwell, and most scientists in the 19th century, this could not have happened. Therefore, according to Hume, it didn't happen. "

Happy?

Hume does not claim the probability is 0.


If the a priori probability of a miracle is > 0, then there will be a level of evidence that makes a miracle the most probable explanation. The only certain way to prevent the posterior probability of a miracle from becoming greater than 0.5 (meaning greater than the probability of the set of all the alternatives) is if the prior probability is 0, i.e. if you categorically exclude miracles in advance. That may be possible, but is not part of Hume's argument (as you describe it). As far as probability theory goes, Hume's conclusion is false.


According to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the existence of the universe itself is god's first miracle. If a cosmological theory involving a definite beginning to the cosmos were proven beyond reasonable doubt, that would still leave a role for a creator god. That god may not choose to interfere in the day to day running of the universe, or miracles after the start up may just not be consistent with any order in the universe, but there might be room for an initial miracle. If a cosmological theory were correct that says the big bang was merely the beginning of this universe, which is merely a bubble in an eternal cosmos, where would that leave a creator god? And if an entity is a part of the universe, how could it not act according to the rules of that universe?


I think probability of miracles or anything else supernatural is negligibly low. I don't know enough to decide whether there is a convincing argument that the probability is 0.

'Miracle' is a perspective-subjective term. Reality is what exists, and it includes both the probable and the improbable events which occur. When God produces a 'miracle', it's an easy matter for Him according to the ultra-high level of power the Bible ascribes to Him. So, whenever someone says "This is a miracle!", he's speaking from the perspective of a power-limited being. When Genesis describes God's creation of the world, it doesn't mention any 'miracles', 'great wonders', or other synonyms for the amazing, because Genesis is written from God's perspective. It's simply a list of what He did, just as we would write a grocery list, and consider it no great accomplishment to go shopping and gather up the items.

'Science' is another funny word, but I don't want to derail the thread just yet.

Einstein predicted that gravity distorted space and the light bending around the Sun observed during the 1919 eclipse merely confirmed that light merely followed the path of the distorted space predicted by Einstein. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_g ... relativity

Nothing miraculous was involved.
In general when an observation is made in science of an event that seems to violate scientific laws science changes its understanding of the laws. Miracles simply do not occur.

I know what the general theory of relativity is.

I'm asking how we can tell the difference between a phenomenon that follows a law of nature we are not aware of, and a miracle which genuinely breaks the intrinsic laws of nature (assuming they exist), whether we are aware of them (these laws of nature) or not.

If you honestly think that they are valid, my response is as follows:

SHOW ME something miraculous!
It you cant then the MOST they can ever be is another undemonstrated possibility.
Lest ye forget: The burden of proof rest on the person making the claim!

Neither did I, I claimed it was extraordinarily low given the background of knowledge, which I do not think is an unacceptable paraphrase of the position. It is true that critics after Hume have alleged that Hume's argument is just purely circular.


Well, I think the argument prevents the miracle from exceeding .5 given that it is presumed that for every occurrence where an explanation in accordance with natural laws is possible, it is more favored for upholding the natural laws/principles/etc. Thus, Hume's argument still works, even if the natural lawed explanation is very difficult to accept. The problem isn't about whether miracles actually occur, but rather whether miracles can be believed. Thus, I do not see how there is a probability theory problem with Hume.


I wouldn't argue that the probability is 0. The argument I put forward was that the probability of a miracle will always be less than any non-miraculous alternative.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 27 Feb 2009, 6:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well, part of the problem is that unless you can allow for a miracle to be separated from something like a magic trick, a drug, or alien technology, then you cannot necessarily know it to be a miracle.

Well, the issue is that this was later found to be non-miraculous, thus I do not think it constitutes a violation of Hume's argument, which was mostly against religious claims of outright violation of laws. This was just a working of physics so far unknown, but which could later be understood.

I decided to re-address this issue. Yes, a religious frame allows for miracles to occur with a complete justice for accepting a number of them. A major issue is that this kind of issue causes miracles to be more problematic for convincing people who do not believe in that particular miraculous tradition.

This does lead to an issue with a person on the verge of accepting a supernatural framework, wherein particular miracle would make sense. But, the issue with those miracles would likely be that there would also have to be reasons for the miracle accepted a priori.

The conceptual basis of science is that all phenomena can eventually be fitted into a system of comprehensible natural laws. Therefore by conceptual definition if something occurs it is a part of the system of natural laws. Under a scientific outlook a miracle is therefor impossible and anything assumed miraculous will eventually be fitted into a rational scientific system. Religion, on the other hand, bases much of its belief system on an ignorance of much of nature and frequently exults in its own ignorance and in the impossibility of discovering all natural relationships which is inherent in its belief system. Under the domination of its delight in ignorance miracles therefor can be accepted as part of its system.

If a phenomenon occurs which appears to break one of our 'laws' describing how reality operates, all that means is that our 'law' is wrong. For example, we might think that in order for a lightning bolt to jump from one location to another some sort of charge seperation is needed. If we were to subsequently observe Zeus hurling a lightning bolt, but without requiring charge seperation, then this would not be a case of the 'law' about required charge seperation being broken. Rather, it would be a sign that our description of reality is inaccurate, and require that we amend our law from 'lightning requires charge seperation' to 'lightning requires charge seperation except when Zeus is creating lightning'. This new law would of course be subject to further refinements, should we find more exceptions, or if we were to discover cases in which Zeus can't generate lightning without charge separation, etc.

It's a good idea to clarify what the word "miracle" means. It is a religiously acceptable term for magic. Magic is considered illegal and unacceptable and somehow some sort of deal with a powerful and evil spiritual entity in Christianity so somehow when Christ and the saints and God performed acts not comprehensible under normal understanding they were claimed to be miracles or, actually, religiously acceptable magic. Science discards magic entirely.