(Author’s note: This continues a series answering objections to the Christian worldview. A week or two ago I made a call for folks to send me their “best shot.” For the other posts in the series, simply follow the links and the pingbacks in the comments section.)
For the background to this post, go here.
Here’s my latest response to Bino in our discussion of miracles:
>What I think is, you yourself need to think rigorously about what “possible” means. Define your term precisely, then ask your question precisely.
I don’t mean necessity or logical possibility. I mean “do you think they can happen?” Are they possible even in principle? Nothing murky about that question.
Really, Bino, yours was a silly rejoinder. I think what I’m asking is quite clear given the context of our conversation, and you try to avoid answering a question yourself, but you give me the answer further down in your response. You say:
>Magic means outside cause and effect.
and
>We agree that this event could not in fact have happened by the laws of nature. What would be reasonable to conclude would be that in fact it didn’t happen
and
>You have never seen an event that was caused by something other than natural causes.
The answer to my question is “no.” You don’t even think miracles are possible in principle. You rule them out a priori, before even examining the event. You dismiss miracles out of hand because they don’t fit your worldview. The only way you would say with such confidence that I have never seen an event that was caused by something other than natural forces is if you assume that natural forces are the only causes that exist. It’s difficult to see how you could know such a thing…you don’t strike me as omniscient.
At this point, I want to wax eloquent on your perceived motives, but instead, I’ll just ask a question: are you really interested in this conversation?
If you don’t think miracles are even possible, then why are you asking me about criterion for identifying miracles? Why are we even talking?
In addition, you operate on the basis of certain philosophic naturalistic presuppositions and assumptions, and you need to acknowledge this and acknowledge that they color what you see. You are far, far from neutral.
>If miracles happen, miracles are real. As we have seen you have no evidence and no logical method to determine that miracles happen.
No…again, you misconstrue the point. What I said is not tautological. What I said is that if the events happened as described (man dies…people pray…soon after, man alive), then ascribing a miraculous character to the event is a reasonable inference.
There is a difference between establishing the events themselves and describing their character. To see this, just consider that someone, say, you, could agree that the events happened as described (man dies…people pray…soon after, man alive) but disagree with those who ascribe a miraculous cause to it. Whether you would be reasonable in that disagreement is another question, but you could, logically, not allow the inference, and you wouldn’t be making a contradiction.
All sorts of historians, theologians, and philosophers have done just this with regard to the empty tomb. They give assent to the historicity of the events themselves, but ascribe a non-miraculous explanation for them (disciples stole the body, Jesus swooned and didn’t really die, the disciples had a hallucination, etc)…each explanation lacks some necessary explanatory power and scope, of course, but nevertheless, this demonstrates a difference between the events themselves and ascribing explanations, and therefore my response is not tautological.
Bottom line: there is a difference between establishing that certain events happened (a matter of straightforward history) and explaining how they happened (the latter involves ascribing natural or miraculous causes).
Here’s another consideration that establishes the sensibility of my approach: there are two broadly possible causal explanations in science: natural and agent. When a forensic scientist enters a scene, he seeks to determine if the man died by natural means (heart attack) or agent means (foul play). He looks for certain attributes present in the scene. This is the very same thing I’m doing: I’ve got a datum, an event, and the characteristics I identify are no more “arbitrary” than the CSI’s characteristics.
Furthermore, your accusation of arbitrariness doesn’t hold because I’ve garnered some of my criteria by reflecting on what we expect from events caused by natural forces. For example, events caused by natural forces can be repeated regularly by creating certain conditions. So if an event happens that is not repeated in that way and that happens at a conspicuous time (i.e., after a specific prayer requesting the event), that’s telling…far from arbitrary, it’s plain ol common sense.
Look at it another way: a man wins the lottery…Most likely coincidence. If five people win and play the same way, that could be due to the system. But if one man wins ten times in a row, and those who play the same way do not win, that looks like someone monkeyed with the lottery system. That inference is not arbitrary at all; if the lottery runs unabated, we don’t expect things like that to happen.
What you seem to be saying is that no matter how reliable the testimony, no matter what the evidence offered, even if you saw the events with your own eyes, you’d dismiss the events, rather than attribute a miraculous cause to them. The explanation would be too incredible for you, so you’d say the events didn’t happen, no matter what the price. You’d say “he must not have died…this must be some elaborate hoax, or my senses must be deceiving me.”
You seem to assume that if a person testifies to something that is contrary to uniform experience, then the testimony is prima facie unreliable.
If that is what you think, my question to you is, “why should I accept your assumptions?” That is, why should I accept that miracles aren’t even possible in principle, that any non-natural explanation must be dismissed simply because it’s non-natural?” You need to provide an argument for accepting that very large plank in your worldview.
>Miracles are different from everything we see and touch and feel and hear – everything we know to actually exist.
Now you are really letting the cat out of the bag as to your background assumptions. Why should I agree that what we see, touch, feel, and hear–namely, the empirical world–is “everything we know to actually exist”? This is another key assumption that you provide no argumentation for.
>The event you and I observe is easily, naturally, inductively explained by “Credulous primitives back then made up all sorts silly magic myths. This is another one.”
This is simply microwaved Humean thinking. First, in describing the people of Jesus’ time as “credulous primitives,” you miss the fact that the miracles of Jesus’ time happened under Roman civilization in the Jewish capital. Roman society was a highly educated society, and the Jews have bequeathed to the West a tremendous amount of knowledge and civilization. They weren’t idiots. They knew virgins didn’t normally give birth and that dead men didn’t normally come back alive, especially after a brutal crucifixion. They had five senses and common sense. You assume a chronological snobbery that does not help your case.
Plus, even if I grant your description of them, it doesn’t follow that people today who witness miracles are therefore discredited too. Miracles today happen to a wide array of people. They are witnessed by university philosophy professors–I know one who has a few testimonies of striking miracles. They are witnessed by scientists, historians, young professionals, college students, as well as the “regular Joe.” It is not reasonable to simply dismiss their testimony because you think folks 2,000 years ago were simpletons.
>Excellent. We’ve identified where our theories diverge. I believe in things there are evidence for. You believe in things you make up.
I beg to differ. Nice try, though.
****I will be putting up a post later in the week responding directly to other arguments against the possibility and identification of miracles (Hume).
_________________________________________________________________________________________
If you liked what you read, please consider subscribing to my RSS feed (RSS button found at the top right in the sidebar).
