How to distinguish between myth and miracle?

[marco]

We read in: 1 Kings 17:16
"For the jar of flour was not used up and the jug of oil did not run dry, in keeping with the word of the LORD spoken by Elijah. "

We have a similar story from Ovid about Philemon and Baucis, an old couple, visited by the gods Mercury and Jupiter. Baucis noticed that the pitcher of wine kept filling itself miraculously. The couple were led to a mountain and the city of wicked people was destroyed by the gods.
Two angels visited Lot's family and the extremely pious Lot offered his own daughters to be abused by the mob, so as to keep the angels safe. The city was similarly destroyed for its wickedness.

The explanation of salt sea water is that a magical grinder churned out salt and nobody knew how to stop it. So it goes on grinding salt, ego the salt seas.

Deucalion and Pyrrha were visited by two gods and taken away before the earth was flooded. Stones were turned into people to repopulate the Earth. Noah was told to build the Titanic with some bits of wood, which he did. The Earth was repopulated in a less miraculous way.

We smile at one set and revere the other. Why?

We can tell from the far-fetched accounts that the stories are fiction - but somehow we believe the Bible accounts. Why?

Are there distinguishing features between Bible miracles and myths?

[Mithrae]

It is not possible to regard miracles as "natural phenomena" since they are NOT natural, being without possible explanation except through unnatural agencies.

Like fishermen catching a shoal of fish when advised to give it one last try?

Yes, this is a good example of reading the miraculous into the natural. People catch a lot of fish - so what? But people catch a lot of fish after being unsuccessful, and Jesus urging try again.... miraculous! In fact it is at best an example of one of those coincidences that make us raise an eyebrow. The other night I was writing a mathematical term and it appeared simultaneously on TV in a quiz. Next night I was writing about Noah here and again, at that moment, came a question on TV about the type of wood used to build the Ark.

I didn't register this as a miracle but perhaps I should have.

P.S.


Well this is strange! I turned to the TV just now and a person says: "I need a miracle."

Is God perhaps playing games with poor Marco?

Maybe Maybe you're misremembering the sequence of those events. But just in case you have inadvertently become a temporary cosmic antenna, maybe you could turn on the TV and let me know if they're talking about Elijah.

'Miracles' have always been considered evidence of divine agency, but some religious and especially non-religious folk have taken that to an extreme of supposing that they must be absolute proof, that a 'natural' explanation must be impossible or else it's not a miracle. Trouble is that the template for miracles, at least in the Christian tradition, don't fit that concept of them: Catching a big shoal of fish after an unsuccessful night is not unnatural, but it's highly improbable and related as a miracle because it was done on Jesus' word. If the story were true, it would not be 100% proof of divine agency... but given the low probability of it happening as a result of chance, it would imply a high probability that it was a result of (divine) agency.

The biggest problem with the absolute proof view of miracles is that pretty much everything can be imagined to have a 'natural' explanation if you reach far enough - even without discrediting the witnesses, billionaire conspiracies or aliens playing around with advanced technologies would be a couple of all-purpose examples. It's a definition which intentionally or not makes the claim "miracles don't happen" an unfalsifiable and meaningless tautology.

The biggest problem with the mere evidence view of miracles is selection bias; for example if Jesus had a habit of telling the disciples to try the other side of the boat every morning after an unsuccessful night, it wouldn't be surprising if it happened to work out one time. But it's less problematic than the issues with the absolutist view, I reckon, as well as being more in line with actual/biblical usage.

[marco]

Maybe you're misremembering the sequence of those events.

Thanks for that explanation, Mithrae. That fairly dispenses with my objectivity. As for your Elijah experiment, it is well known that God will not be tested, nor will
coincidence.

The biggest problem with the mere evidence view of miracles is selection bias; for example if Jesus had a habit of telling the disciples to try the other side of the boat every morning after an unsuccessful night, it wouldn't be surprising if it happened to work out one time. But it's less problematic than the issues with the absolutist view, I reckon, as well as being more in line with actual/biblical usage.

I should imagine that the biggest problem is the desire in the reporter's head to tilt the story in favour of an incontrovertible mystery. Drunk people may well think that water, with an additive, is good wine. Holy people will think it is a miracle. We want a miracle, so we have a miracle. We want a god, so we have a god.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 11 by Mithrae]

It's a definition which intentionally or not makes the claim "miracles don't happen" an unfalsifiable and meaningless tautology.

Is the claim "miracles do happen" not also unfalsifiable and meaningless tautology?

The biggest problem with the absolute proof view of miracles is that pretty much everything can be imagined to have a 'natural' explanation if you reach far enough

Which is what we've seen happening with other miracle claims by other religions. Vikings believed thunder and lightning to be Thor fighting his enemies with his magical hammer Mjolnir. Nowadays, we know better.

for example if Jesus had a habit of telling the disciples to try the other side of the boat every morning after an unsuccessful night, it wouldn't be surprising if it happened to work out one time.

For all we know, Jesus did do exactly that, and it was the successful fishing trip that got mentioned in the holy texts. It's not surprising for people even today to attribute success to their god, all the while forgetting to think about the numerous failures that preceded it.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 11 by Mithrae]

So the thing is, I am curious how Zeus, who was worshiped 2000 years ago, and far longer than Jesus or Yahweh, who deeds were not considered myths (until Christians defamed them) are different from "commonly understood."

So, in a few years, when folks are worshiping some evolved god, and looking back at Noah's Ark as a trite myth, will Yahweh still be real?

Just asking.

[marco]

So, in a few years, when folks are worshiping some evolved god, and looking back at Noah's Ark as a trite myth, will Yahweh still be real?

Just asking.

We never really give up the old habits. God is dead, long live God! Christianity will perhaps dwindle away into fragments and another belief system will kill the hearts of humans. It looks as if it will kill a few thousand humans as well. The ferocity with which the multitude label fiction as Truth negates any progress science might make. Our airports that open up the world as never before are now furnished with prayer rooms so that myth might live longer.