Miracles

[cottage]

Are miracles just a religious believer's argument?

G K Chesterton, (1874-1936), Orthodoxy, writes that belief that miracles have happened in human history is not a mystical belief at all: 'I believe in them upon human evidences as I do in the discovery of America.'

In the very first sentence the writer makes it clear that there is metaphysical commitment to the idea of miracles - before any reference to the facts. And America and its existence can be established in possible experience; I don't see how the writer can make such a comparison with supposed supernatural accounts, which must be taken as read and cannot be subjected to enquiry and cross examination.
He also states in the same piece of work that disbelievers in miracles deny them because they have a doctrine against them. And that is quite untrue. Most people would surely be delighted to accept miracles as a fact, if indeed that is what they were. And it is a little odd to propose that someone has a doctrine against miracles; a thing is either satisfactorily proven or it is not.
It seems to me that whereas in ordinary life our knowledge begins from facts, believers begin from doctrinal beliefs (The Resurrection, is one example) and then propose vague claims to support those beliefs.
What do you think?

 

[Storm]

I think "miracles happen within the rules." (Joan Of Arcadia)

If a given miracle is vital to a given religion's tradition (the Resurrection, for instance), of course believers are going to accept it, and most* of those who do not accept the religion will likewise reject the miracle. That much seems obvious.

* I say most because I find myself an exception to this rule of thumb. I reject the Christian religion, but believe in the Resurrection.

That said, I'm a bit unclear as to what you want to debate. Did I answer your question?

 

[BucephalusBB]

Personally I see a miracle as an event that happened while it was actually not possible to happen or have a very small change statistically seen.

If it was actually not possible, I think this was because the knowledge of the observer wasn't sufficient to explain the event to the oberver.
If it had a small chance of happening, it had a chance of happening. No biggy..

So when it comes to a religious miracle, to me it's the same as every miracle.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Cottage,

Miracles
Are miracles just a religious believer's argument?

There is nothing as miracles.
If something is possible to happen. It happens.
wHen the understanding of such possibilities are out of the grasp of the individual's mind then he states them as miracles.
Every action has a reaction [karma principle]
Similarly what happens are all due to some acts leading to that action termed *miracle*.miracles are nothing but mysteries unsolved.
Love & rgds

 

[cottage]

The reason I say miracles are a ‘believers’ argument’ is that it is G K Chesterton’s (and Dr Greenleaf’s Testimonies of the Evangelists) esteemed opinion that if there is human testimony to the evidence of a miracle then the denier is a dogmatist. He says:

‘It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence—it is you rationalists who refuse actual evidence being constrained to do so by your creed. But I am not constrained by any creed in the matter, and looking impartially into certain miracles of mediaeval and modern times, I have come to the conclusion that they occurred.’

I must beg the writer’s pardon to point out that when he says 'I'm not constrained by any creed' he has already contradicted himself when he began with 'It is we Christians'. If he believes the biblical account to be a fact that God sent his only son to earth to die for our sins, then he confirms for us his adherence to a creed! And, indeed, he is certainly not 'looking impartially into certain miracles' when he accepts without question, as part of his faith, that Christ rose from the dead.

In sum, these gentlemen aren’t simply reserving their right to indulge their mystical beliefs; they are informing us, the public at large, that we ought to accept reported miracles as supernatural events that have occurred in fact. On that basis, then, is every claim of alien abduction and penetration also to be considered factually true?

 

[cottage]

Personally I see a miracle as an event that happened while it was actually not possible to happen or have a very small change statistically seen.

If it was actually not possible, I think this was because the knowledge of the observer wasn't sufficient to explain the event to the oberver.
If it had a small chance of happening, it had a chance of happening. No biggy..

So when it comes to a religious miracle, to me it's the same as every miracle.

Yes, I'm inclined to agree. Although it seems that only events way back in the misty past were proper miracles. I believe that contemporary miracles sanctified by the RC church are considerably downgraded. Cynical ole me.

 

[Qwert12345]

The reason I say miracles are a ‘believers’ argument’ is that it is G K Chesterton’s (and Dr Greenleaf’s Testimonies of the Evangelists) esteemed opinion that if there is human testimony to the evidence of a miracle then the denier is a dogmatist. He says:

‘It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence—it is you rationalists who refuse actual evidence being constrained to do so by your creed. But I am not constrained by any creed in the matter, and looking impartially into certain miracles of mediaeval and modern times, I have come to the conclusion that they occurred.’

I must beg the writer’s pardon to point out that when he says 'I'm not constrained by any creed' he has already contradicted himself when he began with 'It is we Christians'. If he believes the biblical account to be a fact that God sent his only son to earth to die for our sins, then he confirms for us his adherence to a creed! And, indeed, he is certainly not 'looking impartially into certain miracles' when he accepts without question, as part of his faith, that Christ rose from the dead.

In sum, these gentlemen aren’t simply reserving their right to indulge their mystical beliefs; they are informing us, the public at large, that we ought to accept reported miracles as supernatural events that have occurred in fact. On that basis, then, is every claim of alien abduction and penetration also to be considered factually true?

you have hit on the most important idea surrounding "miracles".any miracle (or that which we believe are miracles) must adhere to the laws of nature.i can say,at this point in time,that there is not enough scientific evidence to support the resurrection of jesus christ.perhaps there is something we are not aware of and one day we will be able to prove this miracle actually took place.but until then,there is no reason to believe this claim.if someone puts a miracle in the category of "supernatural" then there is no reason to even consider it.by definition the supernatural cannot be proven or disproven using science and is a waste of time.always follow the evidence my friends.

 

[logician]

Actually, there is no reason to believe any claim of the scientifically impossible w/o hard evidence, of which there is none in any religion of which I know.

 

[Copernicus]

Belief in a miracle is a theoretical position. It is the position that the normal chains of cause and effect in our physical world have been circumvented by a force that is not of the natural world. Usually, the force is thought to come from a spiritual plane of reality, rather than our physical plane. So it is a way of explaining what caused a physical event. When you believe that some event is a miracle, there is no point in looking for a physical cause, because that cause just doesn't exist. One cannot be expected to prove that there is no physical cause, because that would be an attempt to prove a negative.

All of us are philosophical naturalists in that we expect most events to have normal physical causes, even if we don't know what they are. So we are always looking for physical causes, and, to the extent that we believe in miracles, they are considered rather rare events. When a rock falls to the ground, we do not consider the possibility that some spiritual force caused the movement, because we already know about gravity.

Those of us who do not believe in miracles tend to hold that the rarity of miracles is no accident. It is easier to mistake a natural event for a miracle rather than vice versa because the opposite point of view has failed so often. Over the long haul, we have learned that faith in miracles has led to serious failures in our understanding of how things work in nature. Our survival and well-being depends on the accuracy of our understanding of nature.

 

[Qwert12345]

Actually, there is no reason to believe any claim of the scientifically impossible w/o hard evidence, of which there is none in any religion of which I know.

i completely agree,but you must always leave room for new evidence.an example would be the explorer who "creates fire" from nothing for a primitive people.they would perceive him as a miracle worker,but we know he simply has a lighter in his hand.later,through advancements in many areas,they see this "miracle" as not too complicated at all.so could be the case with many things we perceive as miracles.

 

[Copernicus]

i completely agree,but you must always leave room for new evidence.an example would be the explorer who "creates fire" from nothing for a primitive people.they would perceive him as a miracle worker,but we know he simply has a lighter in his hand.later,through advancements in many areas,they see this "miracle" as not too complicated at all.so could be the case with many things we perceive as miracles.

Suppose that rain were considered a miracle brought about by the rain god, and people felt that dancing would please the god and motivate him to sprinkle rain on the crops. This has been tried. It works about as well as any random technique for influencing the weather. Cloud seeding with silver iodide or dry ice works better than randomly. It is these kinds of experiences that have led people to lose faith in miracles.

 

[Qwert12345]

Suppose that rain were considered a miracle brought about by the rain god, and people felt that dancing would please the god and motivate him to sprinkle rain on the crops. This has been tried. It works about as well as any random technique for influencing the weather. Cloud seeding with silver iodide or dry ice works better than randomly. It is these kinds of experiences that have led people to lose faith in miracles.

this point is completely true,im simply saying things that were once perceieved as miracles (the sun rising,child birth) have been explained by science.this would mean they were never miracles at all,we simply did not understand them.(by the way,i said earlier i do not believe in "miracles" unless they are explained by science.)to your point about there being two distinct planes of existence (physical,spiritual).i believe this argument is pointless.if you are to say there is a level of existence (spiritual) that is not bound by any physical law that we perceive,how can you claim it exists?(im not sure if that is your stance or if you were just bringing it up earlier.)

 

[Copernicus]

But miracles are physical events that can be detected. So they can be investigated empirically. It is just that no investigation has ever led to convincing evidence that the event in question was a genuine miracle. There are always more plausible physical explanations of eyewitness accounts. If miracles truly happened, one would expect them to be a little easier to verify than they apparently are. Despite all our investigations, it may still be the case that miracles actually do occur. But so what? It seems that we are just as well off to carry on as if they did not.

 

[Qwert12345]

But miracles are physical events that can be detected. So they can be investigated empirically. It is just that no investigation has ever led to convincing evidence that the event in question was a genuine miracle. There are always more plausible physical explanations of eyewitness accounts. If miracles truly happened, one would expect them to be a little easier to verify than they apparently are. Despite all our investigations, it may still be the case that miracles actually do occur. But so what? It seems that we are just as well off to carry on as if they did not.

i think we are essentially in agreement,we are just getting caught up in semantics.

 

[Copernicus]

i think we are essentially in agreement,we are just getting caught up in semantics.

Well, I am a linguist. I don't mind getting caught up in semantics.

 

[lunamoth]

A miracle is an impingement upon the world by a supernatural source, namely God. Once the miracle is introduced into the world it follows the laws of nature just as anything that we do to impinge upon the world follows the laws.

A miracle is not 'something we can't (yet) explain by science.' A miracle is something that we know does not happen according to our experience of the natural world. We know virgins do not give birth. People 2000 years ago knew that virgins do not give birth. It was not a matter of understanding how babies are made nor understanding parthenogenesis or cloning.

A naturalist doctinally believes that there is no supernatural source. A theist doctrianlly (by faith) believes that God can impinge upon His creation. If something truely new and extraordinary happens/is discovered, both the theist and the naturalist are bound by intellectual honesty to find out the cause and try to determine whether there is a natural explanation. But, coming from a theist's perspective, the question is: "Whether this is a natural or supernatural event, how does it reflect God's sovereignty and what is my response as I discern God's will for this event?"

 

[Qwert12345]

A miracle is an impingement upon the world by a supernatural source, namely God. Once the miracle is introduced into the world it follows the laws of nature just as anything that we do to impinge upon the world follows the laws.

A miracle is not 'something we can't (yet) explain by science.' A miracle is something that we know does not happen according to our experience of the natural world. We know virgins do not give birth. People 2000 years ago knew that virgins do not give birth. It was not a matter of understanding how babies are made nor understanding parthenogenesis or cloning.

A naturalist doctinally believes that there is no supernatural source. A theist doctrianlly (by faith) believes that God can impinge upon His creation. If something truely new and extraordinary happens/is discovered, both the theist and the naturalist are bound by intellectual honesty to find out the cause and try to determine whether there is a natural explanation. But, coming from a theist's perspective, the question is: "Whether this is a natural or supernatural event, how does it reflect God's sovereignty and what is my response as I discern God's will for this event?"

well i disagree with your assertion that things perceived as miracles are always supernatural events.the example you used concerning the virgin birth holds no ground because a virgin has never given birth.ever.all scientific evidence holds that 2000 years ago there was one and only one way for a woman to become pregnant.so is it really logical to believe that a "supernatural event" (which has never been proven) occured,or is it more likely that she did it the old fashioned way?(which has proven itself throughout history.)

 

[Copernicus]

That Mary was impregnated by an ordinary human being is certainly the outcome most favored by Occam's Razor. However, it is even more likely that the virgin birth was as mythical as all of the other virgin births that were attributed to various human beings in those times. Even Caesar Augustus was supposed to be the outcome of a virgin birth, since he was considered a divine being by many in his empire. Jesus, if he was to gain any kind of credibility, had to at least have held his own in comparison to other exalted figures.

 

[cottage]

Here is my view. A miracle is an event that isn’t consistent with the uniformity of nature. But extraordinary instances do occur, for example the complete recovery from an illness that is normally fatal. And while that is a blessed surprise, it isn’t a miracle. Nor is growing a new limb from stem cell transplants a miracle; however, if an amputee grew back the missing limb in the blink of an eye that would be such.
So the problem I have with the claim to miracles is that a) they’re nothing of the sort, as in a remarkable recovery from illness, where biological explanations are wholly possible, or (b) the claims refer to the distant past where the circumstances are closed off to any examination or verification. If a volcanic mountain, in its entirety, lifted itself out of the ground and floated across an ocean to establish itself safely in a new location where it wouldn’t harm any local inhabitants – that would be a miracle. And if a man, dead three days, was brought back to life and with no corruption to the flesh – that too would be a miracle. Whilst a sudden precipitation, following prayer, which saved people from a terrible drought that had existed for months, would certainly be a wondrous occasion, the event is entirely explicable in our-world terms. Now if mountains regularly transposed themselves across continents and oceans, that would be explicable in our-world terms, but the fact remains they do not!

 

[anth]

To me, a miracle is merely the event of a good, but highly unlikely event.

Example:

Two years ago, I was diagnosed with lymphoma (a type of highly-curable cancer.)

Some might argue that this was terrible, even a punishment from a being above. However, after the treatments and surgery and such, I came out of the hospital as a better person all-around. I was more tolerant of others, kinder to people, more patient, and in-general nicer.

Only recently have the Chemotherapy drugs worn off to some degree and allow me to think on higher levels than simple arithmatic and words.

While some view this as a horrible thing, it is a miracle to me.

What I guess I'm trying to get at is that not all miracles come in a pretty package, and some can even be misinterpreted as curses or punishments, only later to be found as what they really are.

Indeed, miracles are strange.