Historicity of Claimed Miracles

[idav]

Can history be enough to accept any miracles as anything supernatural? Where are the miracles that are breaking laws of nature at these days? Our natural world really doesn't seem to have a case for the supernatural, or it is just plain natural.

The following article takes a pretty educated look at the debate for the supernatural. I will quote the conclusion in case TLDR syndrome kicks in.

Conclusion
It seems to me, therefore, that the lesson to be learned from the classical debate over miracles, a lesson that has been reinforced by contemporary scientific and philosophical thought, is that the presupposition of the impossibility of miracles should, contrary to the assumption of nineteenth and for the most part twentieth century biblical criticism, play no role in determining the historicity of any event. While many scholars still operate under such an assumption, there seems now to be a growing recognition that such a presupposition is illegitimate. The presupposition against the possibility of miracles survives in theology only as a hangover from an earlier Deist age and ought to be once for all abandoned.

The Problem of Miracles: A Historical and Philosophical Perspective | Reasonable Faith

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Can history be enough to accept any miracles as anything supernatural?

Of course not.

 

[technomage]

The following article takes a pretty educated look at the debate for the supernatural.

Educated, but biased. Craig is well known for ignoring evidence that does not support his views. His argument agains Hume is especially problematic, as he attempts to argue that Hume is question-begging while never actually addressing the foundation of Hume's arguments.

Craig is an apologist: this is neither the first time he's attempted to stack the deck in an argument, and I doubt it will be the last.

 

[idav]

Educated, but biased. Craig is well known for ignoring evidence that does not support his views. His argument agains Hume is especially problematic, as he attempts to argue that Hume is question-begging while never actually addressing the foundation of Hume's arguments.

Craig is an apologist: this is neither the first time he's attempted to stack the deck in an argument, and I doubt it will be the last.

I see both sides well presented in there.

 

[metis]

I don't believe in miracles, but I'm not going so far as to say they're not possible.

 

[Sleeppy]

Imagine if one of us travelled back in time, carrying advanced technology, medicine, etc.

 

[Sleeppy]

I don't believe in miracles, but I'm not going so far as to say they're not possible.

Why do you suppose miracles are somewhat commonplace in Jewish history?

 

[metis]

Why do you suppose miracles are somewhat commonplace in Jewish history?

For at least a couple of reasons. First of all, we now well know that our scriptures were written as we see them long after the events they covered, thus they injected God into these events, correctly or incorrectly (since I'm non-theistic, I tend to strongly lean towards the latter).

Secondly, people back then knew nothing of the "scientific method", so their thinking was quite different than our western leanings tend to be today.

Thirdly, their "world view" was much more limited than ours, and in so many different ways.

Fourthly, it was a large part of the cultural heritage that got passed down for centuries, so "confirmation bias" would be very powerful.

Also, let me just add that since I'm an anthropologist who has studied many different cultures for almost 50 years now, we find miracles virtually being believed in all societies by most of the people who live in them. That neither intrinsically makes them right or wrong, but that this is a characteristic human trait as far back as we can take it. To some people, this might encourage them to lean in the direction that miracles exist, but for myself, it indicates more likely the opposite, and my fellow anthropologists tend to feel much the same way, although certainly not all. But my experience is that most who are theists in my field tend to drift in the direction of pantheism/panentheism, which includes a significant portion of my fellow Jews, btw.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I believe that sychronistic events happen all the time and some people would consider sychronistic events to be miracles.

 

[George-ananda]

Can history be enough to accept any miracles as anything supernatural?

For historical miracles, like in the Bible, we can't know. For miracles in the age of media and collection of first hand reports, we can consider all the data and possible explanations and determine a likelihood in each case. Usually proof or disproof are not possible.

Where are the miracles that are breaking laws of nature at these days?

Claimed and debated all the time. And we have to determine our own likelihood based on all evidence and argumentation. Based on all the miracles I've heard, particularly those related to a particular individual, I would say I believe in miracles far beyond 99%.

Our natural world really doesn't seem to have a case for the supernatural, or it is just plain natural.

Here we're getting into the usual semantic difficulties. The word 'supernatural' I think is valid in a colloquial sense. Ultimately, it is not a correct term if read literally. All things are 'natural' but I believe things that involve forces and entities above the physical plane have been called 'supernatural'.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For historical miracles, like in the Bible, we can't know. For miracles in the age of media and collection of first hand reports, we can consider all the data and possible explanations and determine a likelihood in each case. Usually proof or disproof are not possible.

That's true less and less often, actually:

 

[technomage]

For miracles in the age of media and collection of first hand reports, we can consider all the data and possible explanations and determine a likelihood in each case. Usually proof or disproof are not possible.

9-10ths Penguin has a very good point here.

All things are 'natural' but I believe things that involve forces and entities above the physical plane have been called 'supernatural'.

If such forces are natural, then they are susceptible to scientific analysis. Where is the analysis?

 

[George-ananda]

That's true less and less often, actually:

Don't we get alleged ufo and ghost photos all the time. Who can determine legitimacy. What are ghosts supposed to look like on a camera? And in this day of video technology, what photo could ever go unchallenged?

And these things are only a tiny percentage of things I call miracles. How do you show a miracle healing on camera for instance?

 

[George-ananda]

If such forces are natural, then they are susceptible to scientific analysis. Where is the analysis?

At this time science is limited to the physical in what it can test. Maybe next century.

 

[technomage]

At this time science is limited to the physical in what it can test. Maybe next century.

Actually, that limitaton is by definition, not by difficulty. By definition, science is only competent to discuss natural phenomena. Even if a proposed non-natural entity (ghost, spirit, deva, god, what have you) decided to interact with a scientific experiment, science can only say "Something outside of the realm of scientific knowledge has interacted with this." Science cannot say what that entity was unless that entity chose to submit itself to scientific analysis ... and even at that, science probably does not have the tools to perform that analysis.

 

[George-ananda]

Even if a proposed non-natural entity (ghost, spirit, deva, god, what have you) decided to interact with a scientific experiment, science can only say "Something outside of the realm of scientific knowledge has interacted with this." Science cannot say what that entity was unless that entity chose to submit itself to scientific analysis ... and even at that, science probably does not have the tools to perform that analysis.

It seems like semantic differences. I think you are defining 'natural' to be things of what I would call the physical plane. Things on other planes, like astral beings, I still consider to be part of the natural (but not physical plane) universe. And if I use the term 'supernatural' I get criticized by some. It's just semantics.

 

[technomage]

It seems like semantic differences. I think you are defining 'natural' to be things of what I would call the physical plane. Things on other planes, like astral beings, I still consider to be part of the natural (but not physical plane) universe. And if I use the term 'supernatural' I get criticized by some. It's just semantics.

I'm willing to use your terminology, but the issue still remains: science, by definition, can only examine phenomena that are entirely contained on the physical plane.

 

[George-ananda]

I'm willing to use your terminology, but the issue still remains: science, by definition, can only examine phenomena that are entirely contained on the physical plane.

That's fine but I was just allowing for the possibility next century that science may expand to include the study of all planes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Don't we get alleged ufo and ghost photos all the time. Who can determine legitimacy.

Knowledgeable people. People who know the intricacies of optics and electronics, people who knos the type of science that deals with the specific claim, and people who understand how photos can be faked.

What are ghosts supposed to look like on a camera?

Good question. However, it seems it should be up to the person saying "hey! I got a picture of a ghost!" to answer it.

And in this day of video technology, what photo could ever go unchallenged?

Yes, we should treat photos with caution (though this isn't a new concern - I'm sure I don't have to tell you about the Cottingley Fairies). However, I think this speaks more to the volume of evidence, not its quality. If Bigfoot or Nessie were real, for instance, we would expect that as camera phones become more and more ubiquitous, we'd have more and more photos oc these creatures. Basically, we'd expect that many of the occurrences that were eyewitness reports with no photo 20 or even 10 years ago should have several photos to go with them if they happen today.

And these things are only a tiny percentage of things I call miracles. How do you show a miracle healing on camera for instance?

Obviously, the ubiquity of cameras only speaks to claims about things that can be seen, but similar ideas apply in other areas. For instance, people in need of healing are much more likely to be undergoing detailed monitoring of their conditions now than at any other point in history, so we ought to expect better evidence for "miracle healing", too.

 

[Copernicus]

Obviously, the ubiquity of cameras only speaks to claims about things that can be seen, but similar ideas apply in other areas. For instance, people in need of healing are much more likely to be undergoing detailed monitoring of their conditions now than at any other point in history, so we ought to expect better evidence for "miracle healing", too.

And an interesting fact about "miracle healing" is that it is always of the type that could be easily explained by natural causes--e.g. the remission of a tumor--or could be easily faked. We never get the regeneration of a lost limb. People believe these stories only because they want to believe them.

Miracles are always subject to scientific investigation, because they are always physical events. People can talk about "astral planes" and such all they like, but the account of the miracle itself alleges that the supernatural cause has a naturally-observable effect.