Atheists and naturalists will often argue against miracles as Hume did: by saying they violate the universal human experience; i.e. humans have no experience of miracles. There are at least three problems with this.
First, there is the confirmation problem. How could anyone possibly know this to be true? It would require that every person alive today be interviewed, and each and every one confirms that they have never experienced a miracle. If even a handful of people claimed to have experienced miracles, then it would not be accurate to say it is the universal human experience that miracles do not occur.
Secondly, there is the problem of chronological snobbery. Why presume that the miracles have to occur in our own day in order to be valid? What if God only chooses to perform miracles at certain junctures of history, and our particular era is not one in which He chooses to do so? If this is even possibly true, then the lack of any miracles in our own day speaks nothing to the issue of whether miracles are possible. As long as even one bona fide miracle has occurred in the past, this would be sufficient to show that miracles are possible. So to claim that the universal human experience excludes miracles not only requires that we look at the experience of both our contemporaries and our ancestors.
Thirdly, the fact of the matter is that there are many people who claim to have experienced miracles, both in the past and present. The problem is that these claims are dismissed on the grounds that miracles do not happen. But this is circular reasoning. One cannot say miracles are not possible because no one experiences miracles[1], and then when they are presented with various miracle claims dismiss them as veridical on the grounds that miracles cannot happen. This begs the question. The evidence for miracles is simply dismissed based on a priori philosophical commitments and assumptions.
[1]This itself is a logical fallacy because we cannot infer that X is impossible merely on the basis that X fails to instantiate itself in reality. There are no humans with green skin, but that does not mean that it is impossible for us to have green skin.
Thinking to Believe 
January 9, 2012 at 5:13 pm
What evidence does one have for miracles that we skeptics would find out were natural,even fraudelent? We need verification that transcends individual subjectivity as people so err in such matters.
Hume is just using the presumption of naturalism that requires evidence ,so that neither he nor we skeptics beg the question here!
http://fathergriggs.wordpress.com
LikeLike
January 11, 2012 at 10:01 am
Griggs,
You have a point, but it doesn’t match with the point of my post. My only point is that you can’t use “universal experience” as a proof-point against miracles, and then when someone claims to have experienced a miracle, dismiss their claim on the grounds that the universal experience of all people is that miracles do not occur. That’s like saying “there are no red dogs because no one has ever seen a red dog,” and then when someone comes forward and says “I have seen a red dog” you respond by saying “You could not have seen a red dog because no one has seen a red dog.”
As for your point, however, I agree that one should expect evidence for a miracle before they accept it as a miracle. After all, miracles by definition are rare. We know by experience that most things have a naturalistic explanation, so when someone claims that X has a supernaturalistic explanation, the burden of proof is on them to show that this is so. But this can be done. Christians put forth evidence for their claim that God raised Jesus from the dead, for example. And even in our own day we can provide evidence for miracles. For example, the man who tutored me in Christ as a new convert had a son that was born with two esophagi. This is a very rare condition, and doctors were flown in from all over the place to observe him and treat him. The church prayed for him and God healed him. His father has the before and after X-rays to prove it. There is not a trace of the second esophagus. Even if you choose not to believe this account, and even if I was just making it up, it at least shows that evidence could be provided for miracles.
Jason
LikeLike
January 11, 2012 at 10:30 am
jasondulle, yes, that responds to my point. So i’d have to have someone like James Randi to explain how that miracle is natural.
I frame Hume’s point as a matter of probability so as not to beg the question. So, from his and my side, the evidence would determine the answer.
http;// leucipus.blogs/fi
LikeLike
January 11, 2012 at 10:31 am
http;//leucippusofga.blogs/fi
LikeLike
January 11, 2012 at 11:12 am
Griggs,
By saying you would have to appeal to James Randi to come up with a naturalistic explanation indicates to me that for you, no amount of evidence could suffice to demonstrate a miracle. You seem to have an a priori presupposition that miracles are impossible, and that every miracle claim must have a naturalistic explanation, even if you and Randi don’t know what it is. If that is the case, you can’t really have an open mind about the evidence. The evidence doesn’t matter because no matter how good it is, your faith will always be in the unknown naturalistic cause for it.
There’s no question that from a probability standpoint, miracles are unlikely. But if that were not true by definition, then miracles would not be miracles–they would be ordinary. The question is not the probability that X is a miracle given every non-X, but the probability that X is a miracle given the evidence specifically for X being a miracle. If I asked how probable it was that someone should be dealt three royal flushes in a row, and used all the hands that have ever been dealt in the game as my background knowledge, clearly the probability is very low (so low as to be almost unbelievable). But if I had video footage that showed me being dealt those hands, and it could be proven that there was no trickery involved (or perhaps you were the dealer), then one would be justified in believing that someone was dealt three royal flushes in a row. It would do no good after looking at the specific evidence for the specific claim to say, “That’s not possible because it is improbable.”
Jason
LikeLike
January 11, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Jason, no, the evidence probably would suggest remission or such. We have to refer to the conservation of knowledge until actual evidence comes up as Einstein overcame Newton.
It seems -no tu quouque intended- that you have an a priori rush to judgment that miracles are such. As a skeptic, Randi would research the case.
Yes, with Carneades of yore, we two would weigh the probabilities in favor of natural causes. Did Jom Jomes or Granville Oral Robers actually bring back to life in their alleged miracle/.
Such flushes can happen. Indeedsuch counts against the probability arguments against abiogenesis!
Why the rush to judgment?
So,Jason, where is the actual evidence in
any case you do consider a miracle? Why dismiss remissions?
No, we go with the evidence. We only too well know that people see what they want to see.This hardly precludes finding that truth as William James would prattle but instead calls for thourough investigation. 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
LikeLike
January 19, 2012 at 1:38 pm
Griggs,
Clearly for you, the conclusion precedes the evidence: miracles are not possible. And if it looks like a miracle, it must be because we are not understanding the real cause.
No, I do not have an a priori rush to judgment about miracle claims. I do believe miracles are possible and have occurred based on the evidence, but when I am faced with a miracle claim, I am actually quite skeptical. Indeed, I often hear Christians say such things as “God healed me of X.” My first thought is, “I doubt it. What pills did you take? What doctor did you see? How is this disease known to behave? Etc.”
Did you miss my entire point of the cards analogy? The point had nothing to do with probability of life. It’s saying that even if something is enormously improbable, if we have good enough evidence to think it happened, then we should believe it happened. Instead of acknowledging the point that one could be justified in believing in a miracle, you switch the topic to the OOL.
Saying “people see what they want to see” cuts both ways, because you are “people” too. While it’s true that people see things from a certain perspective, that does not mean we are bound to that perspective. We are trying to be critical here.
Jason
LikeLike
January 19, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Jasondulle, until we can have the miracle checked out, we have the probabiity that ii is natural. That’s why we skeptic find those of your Scrioptures unlikely. We know had people misunderstand matters, want to believe and such. When we skeptics check out current ones, they invariably turn out be just natural phenomenon. That no more begs any questions no more than noting that perpetual motion machines are impossible.
Where is any evidence whatsoever for any miracle? No, ti’s not a matter of belief but of evidence. Evidence that never comes forth. I mentioned Randi, because he conducted a thorough investigation of putative miracles years ago.
What miracles for which one can attest can one follow up on?
Now, to the point that justiification could happen, yes, should evidence be there!
We skeptics would then claim it as a true claim. Until then, otherwise.
We know about pshychosomatic cures and remissions and such. Yet, the evidence would counter our presumption!
And only hearsay comes forth not only for miracles but for other matters in the Gospels.
Surely, you’d welcome strictness here to provide for true miracles.
Thanks for your response. I’ll note your blog on mine for others to go to.
LikeLike
January 19, 2012 at 4:52 pm
[…] viaThe Possibility of Miracles and Universal Human Experience « Theo-sophical Ruminations. […]
LikeLike
January 19, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Then you are somethng of a skeptic yourself! Excellent as that notes that one can be a discerning Christian. Thus, we both point out to others to use their senses. Thanks!
http://rationalistgriggsy.wordpress.com
http://skepticicality.blogpost.com
http://skepticgriggsy.posterous.com
LikeLike
January 24, 2012 at 11:41 am
I once paid a friend 50 cents to see a 6 legged frog. The frog was indeed 6 legged, 4 normal legs and two stubby 1/4 inch, doll-like legs on its left abdomen. I was very disappointed. The miracle claims of Christians underwhelm me too and have yet to live up to their hype. I would like to see the x-rays.
I have a friend who suffered a gunshot to the face in his preteen years. It is certainly a small ‘m’ miracle that he survived. He of course claims it’s a big ‘M’ miracle and as proof of this relates that his Doctor tells/told him that medical solutions arose spontaneously in his head as the surgeries progressed – ‘as if (knowledge) coming from nowhere’. But we’re talking here about a 1% percenter among surgeons, a man who regularly saw the trickiest of cases. Had my friend’s Mom performed the surgery, on the kitchen table, and with only standard kitchen cutlery, we would be justified in referring to this as a big ‘M’ miracle.
For centuries, Christians have cited answered health prayers as a proof of God. Yet when statistically valid, double blind tests were done, agreed by Christian scientists and medical doctors in advance, found no link between health improvements and prayer, did the skeptical community hear an ‘our bad’ from God’s apologists and PR agents? Of course not. (Non-scientifically, I do think Christian apologists have pulled back in using this argument with skeptical audiences or have employed the dodge, that you have, of personal experience).
Your broader point about we can’t be certain short of a universal survey and then dis-confirmation of any miracle claims seems intellectually dodgy. Another statement that would have to be subject to the same type of confirmation is that all-men-are-mortal (or at least those who are not also fully God). In the absence of any demonstration of immortality and the lack of a causal mechanism that would justify immortality being possible, we fairly universally agree that mans’ mortality is true.
I also think, in these comments, you have played loose with the types of verification James Randi and his Institute do. I don’t know that Randi himself would be persuaded by your triple-royal-flush demonstration but I do know that if you pass their tests under pre-agreed controls and outcomes that they agree you are justified in claiming the equivalent of a miracle. Tests include things like identifying which containers hold water, sorting unmarked playing cards into sets, or listing the items in a safe locked in Randi’s office. A healing could be a possible demonstration if there could be identification in advance but to my knowledge no Christian body has committed to such in advance. All of which, and similar, should be a snap for God. Yet NO ONE, Christian, occultist, new-ager, or otherwise, has been able to do so.
This is usually where the Christian apologists fall all over themselves spluttering who am I to demand a demonstration from God, Creator of the universe, Giver of life, Master of His own domain. To them and to you, I pose this question: why are skeptics not justified in calling out your God in the same way Elijah called out Baal for not performing a miracle on command? perhaps this was an age when Baal chose not to do miracles, having already demonstrated his powers to pre-civilizations? (and irony of ironies, Christians actually believe in baal-ish powers)
For the record, I don’t agree with Hume, or least Hume as characterized by Christians, that even in the case of strong historical evidence; we should doubt the resurrection for natural explanations. The historical evidence is not only not strong but shows the fingerprints of meddling and duplicity.
LikeLike
January 24, 2012 at 1:59 pm
R.Andrew, you do bespeak W.K.Clifford and David Huime’s rule: proportion acceptance to the evidence. Despite, Willliam James and Keith Ward’s straw man of Clfford’s essay, this means what it says so that no one has to ever stay in bed! Most stuff needs no extra evidence. Medical claims in advertisements and political claims need evidence and the the supernatural and the paranormal need extraordianry evidence.
Again, were real evidence to occur as you note, then we skeptics would have to revise our thinking! However, that probably never shall happen!
Randi and such have the ability to discern fraud and natural manifestations.
Yes, the evidence for that Resurrection is only hearsay at the most, and as the accounts differ, just imagined . Nothing in the accounts elevate them beyond similar accounts about other god-me and miracle workers, who were all unique!
Hume begs no question but just points out difficulties that make for his judgment about that overwhelming evidence. By the way, ti’s an argument from ignorace to ever claim that perhaps miracles have happened but no one tried to verify them.
Google the presumption of naturalism for why natural causes are efficient, necessary, primary and sufficient: they are the sufficient cause and the ultimate explanation,despite Leibniz.
R., see you and others here @ http://fathergriggs.wordpress.com, where one can make her mark, and where I recommend Theo-sophical Ruminations.
LikeLike
January 24, 2012 at 2:01 pm
[…] viaThe Possibility of Miracles and Universal Human Experience « Theo-sophical Ruminations. […]
LikeLike
February 2, 2012 at 10:29 am
B. Andrew Leder,
Sorry about your $0.50. You got conned! As have we all. There is no question that we should approach out-of-the-ordinary claims with a dose of skepticism appropriate to the nature of the claim. Neither is there a question that we should require evidence to back up out-of-the-ordinary claims.
I also agree with you that Christians use the term “miracle” way too loosely. While Christians believe all good things derive from God, that does not mean everything is a miracle.
As for prayer studies, you cited the ones that showed nothing, but there are others that show improvement, and one that I am aware of in which the people got worse! What do such studies prove? In my estimation, they prove that the people who do them are clueless. If God exists, He is a person with a will, and persons with wills can choose whether or not to do X, and when to do X. Only law-like processes can be subjected to studies like this. One cannot start with the flawed premise that God is like a natural law and then take any stock in their findings. If Christianity taught that prayer always resulted in healing, and God promised to heal everyone who asked for such, then perhaps such studies might be of some value. But Christianity does not teach that, and God never promised that. We know both from Scripture and experience that miracles are quite rare (if they weren’t, they wouldn’t be miracles but regularities). So it is not surprising that in any sample there is little to show in the way of results for people who are prayed for. But this does not indicate the non-existence of God or the impossibility of miracles. At best it shows that God has not willed to heal these people. At worst it demonstrates that researchers can be pretty stupid.
You seem to have misunderstood the point of my post. I was not claiming that we cannot make a claim about what is true unless we have been able to survey everyone to see if there are exceptions. I am claiming that it is illegitimate to use one’s generalization as an argument against the legitimacy of counter-evidence when it is presented. As in your example, none of us have witnessed every person die, and yet we are justified in concluding that all men die based on our limited sampling (there would always be 7 billion people who could potentially falsify your conclusion). But if someone could point to an individual who has lived for hundreds of thousands of years, then we should consider that as evidence against our thesis, not say” a priorily” that such is not possible because all men die. That is what Hume was doing, however, in regards to miracles, and that is fallacious reasoning.
As for Randi and the various tests you have proposed, those are good tests. But they are not necessary to confirm a miracle. If you had a childhood friend who lost his arm in a farming accident, and after he prayed to God his arm grew back, would that not be enough to demonstrate a miracle? It would not be enough to explain it in terms of some unknown biological phenomenon given the intimate connection in timing between his prayer and the appearance of his new arm.
As for demanding miracles of God, we aren’t in any place to demand anything of God—no more than I am in a place to demand something of you. So perhaps the Mt. Carmel incident should not have been enough to convince the Baal worshippers that Baal did not exist, but no one can blame them for recognizing the superiority of YHWH). But this is all beside the point, because while miracles may be an easy way to demonstrate the existence of God, even if God were not in the miracle-working business, it would not prove there is no God. There are other ways to know God exists aside from experience and/or miracles.
You said the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus “shows the fingerprints of meddling and duplicity.” Could you elaborate please?
Jason
LikeLike
February 17, 2012 at 9:53 am
Jason, I dissent. I think that Hume, you and I would share this: until that ancient person in that case comes forth, then everyone dies. Thus, it depends on verifiable evidence, which is essentially Hume’s point, not a priori but evidential.
We have no means to find any biblical miracle verifiable- just the we just say so of faith. Thus, Hume’s point gainsays them!
No Randi confirms Paul’s witnesses. Maybe, they were like the disciples and Paul himself, prone to visions. Yes, mass hallucinations do occur! Even conflicting ones.
The Crucifixion would have been devastating!
Paul’s visions rank no better than Muhammad’s!
Elizabeth Loftus finds so many false eye witness accounts. So did the fictional Matlock!
The meddling would be the contradictory accounts that no one can harmonize! Harmonizations amuse me. The old telephone game was at work.Thus, the non-collusion is an ignoratio elenchi- irrelevant.
Again, I recommend this blog in mine. I invite thoughtful posts at mine.
LikeLike
February 17, 2012 at 10:00 am
Jason, the point then is that people rationalize about prayer: “answered” ones are coincidental- psychosomatic, remissions and such; then comes the rationalziations about the unanswered one such as yours. The mysterious ways is just an argument from ignorance!
One might answer my points of 24 January.I’m sticking here; no hit and run!
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 10:07 pm
Jason, some virus hit my computer so that I had to reset my e-address to morganlynngriggsl@gmail.com
LikeLike