benchwarmer wrote:
Mithrae wrote:
- complex human consciousness developed gradually from non-conscious matter
We have evidence of this, so this claim is not extraordinary or a 'miracle'. Is it a miracle that my fingernails grow?
Here's a touch of irony: I put that one in last, almost as an afterthought, because of all those on the list it is the only one for which there is absolutely zero evidence (it is impossible to observe the absence of consciousness, and its
presence is inferred only by analogy which would be obviously fallacious to reverse and infer absence), and arguably the most absurd too (in the other cases we can at least easily imagine ways in which they might mechanically come about, but I cannot even conceive and across dozens of threads have never seen coherently described how the generation of consciousness from non-conscious matter might come about).
benchwarmer wrote:
Mithrae wrote:
But for a more specific, slightly different angle, consider the following claims as examples:
- a man walked on water
This, like the rest, require more detail in order to evaluate. Just as I doubt you simply accept every story you hear - especially those with no empirical basis, I'm not entirely sure what your point with this OP is.
Is the claim that a man, with no special apparatus, walked over liquid water deep enough to normally sink into? If so, this is an extraordinary claim. Be definition. i.e. it is not ordinary for men to walk on liquid water and not sink into it.
So, in addition to the basic claim, is there an addendum that also states this is a the work of an invisible deity? i.e. a 'miracle'?
Maybe an advanced race of aliens with tractor beam technology is playing a hoax. That is at least 'plausible'. Much more so than an 'god' with absolutely zero evidence of said god. We at least know lifeforms appear on planets and eventually create technology.
You don't think that a fellow walking on water would be evidence that his god exists and has got his back? One could just as easily point out that we have absolutely zero evidence of organic life outside our planet, while the millions of
other reported observations of divine action and experience of divine communication span most if not all cultures and time periods. In other words it seems your answer is shaped by the assumptions you've brought to the table.
benchwarmer wrote:
Mithrae wrote:
- a feather dropped as fast as a lead ball
More detail needed. Did this happen in a vacuum? If so, we have empirical evidence of this being possible. If not, shall we simple yell 'godidit!'?
The question isn't what "we" have evidence of; unless you've actually seen that or a similar trick performed (which granted, many of us have) you're ultimately taking other people's word for it. In fact even if you've seen it done, unless you actually set up the experiment yourself you're still taking others' word for it that it's a real feather and lead ball. Obviously this trick is at least as 'extraordinary' as someone walking on water: So do we simply take others' word for it in one case, but not in the other? That would be special pleading. I would argue that the only real difference lies in the quality and quantity of the testimonies available; obviously the word of anonymous ancient religious propagandists doesn't count for much. But if some more credible sources reported observation of a man walking on water, that report should be taken seriously - subjecting the report to additional scepticism based on the suspicion that it may turn out to be evidence of divine intervention would obviously be irrational.
benchwarmer wrote:
Mithrae wrote:
- most of the volume of a chair is empty space
Of a given chair? Or chairs in general? You see, each claim needs some detail in order to analyze it. If not, we are simply believing everything we are told with no critical thought.
The volume of a bean bag chair is mostly beans so this claim is demonstrably false in some cases, perfectly correct in others. Are we claiming that by 'miracle' ALL chairs are mostly empty space?
It is true in the case of every chair, table, human body... everything. I'm talking about the fact that molecules themselves are mostly empty space. That seems even more extra-ordinary and even absurd than a feather falling like a lead ball, and it's probably not verified by personal experience for any of us! How can we possibly just take others' word for it that this is what reality is really like? But we do, don't we? I would say that it is actually irrelevant how extraordinary or even absurd such a claim may seem. Only two things matter:
1) Does it directly contradict anything that I already know? 2) What is the quantity and quality of the reports indicating it to be so? At least those are the only things that really matter, though in practice I suppose we could add 3) does it contradict my biases or prejudices. Many sceptics of the miraculous say that they don't profess any knowledge that miracles don't occur... but perhaps the third point still applies.
benchwarmer wrote:
Mithrae wrote:
- an incurable disease was suddenly healed, contrary to the known normal course of events
Healed? You mean by active force of something? Do we actually know this or are we guessing? Maybe 50 years from now we will understand exactly why a given case of a disease suddenly turned the corner and the person recovered. In ignorance, shall we simply assume 'godidit!"?
...
Mithrae wrote:
- a man regrew an amputated leg overnight, on a local holyday as a result of much prayer
Do we have solid evidence of an amputation and overnight regrowth? Or are we simply asked to believe a story told at a church revival as the money plate is passed around?
We are 'guessing' to greater or lesser extents about literally everything we know besides our own existence and defined truths such as mathematics; a less dismissive term would be 'theorizing.' The Newtonian theory of gravity held up very well for quite some time, until something better came along. If and when we find some better explanation for any particular medical miracles, that will certainly be a worthy progress of knowledge, but until that happy day it would seem that in many cases the
best theory available is that the patient's prayers were answered. As I noted in the OP, even in advanced secular countries such as the USA many (
most in the USA) doctors report observation of medical miracles in their field of expertise.
Regrowth of an amputated limb is apparently quite rare - or perhaps such folk simply don't want their 'before' and 'after' photos paraded around the world like some kind of freak show and their integrity smeared by thousands of armchair sceptics
- but in at least one case
four medical workers' sworn testimony confirmed the amputation below the knee of a fellow later known to have two whole and functioning legs.
The question (#2 above) is, if the sworn testimony of four 16th century medical workers confirmed someone's death or birth or the like, would we accept that report as at least plausible? I think we would, obviously with some potential reservations. So does the report of a regrown limb directly contradict anything we know to be true? It's unusual for sure, but hardly any more so than a claim of a feather falling like a lead ball, and arguably less than the proposition that the surface you are sitting on consists mostly of empty space! Seems to me that under a consistent epistemic approach we would accept that evidence as being
plausible evidence for the regrowth of an amputated limb; not proof obviously, by any stretch of the imagination, but perhaps somewhere in the order of 30-60%.
The widespread reports by 21st century experts regarding miraculous healings in their own practice is obviously much more compelling evidence.
benchwarmer wrote:
None should be accepted unless you have an empirical basis for doing so. Even the 'mundane' claims were at one time extraordinary for everyone. Have you ever seen a toddlers eyes light up when you flick on the light switch to a really cool, lighted mobile? Is it a miracle? Or does this toddler eventually learn how the world works and develops an empirical base for accepting claims based on past experience?
In short, no 'miracles' should simply be accepted without some solid evidence. Some claim a god did it. Others claim aliens did it. Others claim Bob the illusionist pulled one over on everyone. Which one to believe?
I agree with all of this: But I think that many critics' idea of what constitutes "solid evidence" on a case-by-case basis is skewed by naturalist biases rather than applying a consistent standard across the board. Hence the question of the thread, are miracle claims
actually any more extraordinary than many of the other things we accept quite readily?
We can imagine a world - and going by all information I'm familiar with, may in fact live in such a world - where a god intervenes in some remarkable way (not necessarily contrary to the 'laws of physics,' as if that matters) several times a day, somewhere in the world. Most people would never personally witness such miracles, or even be close friends/family with someone who had, and they'd obviously not be subject to repetition or experimentation. But assuming a vaguely benevolent or at least well-intentioned deity, we'd expect healings to feature quite prominently. Doctors are comparatively intelligent, educated and analytical subset of the population, so in the scenario where miracles
don't occur we would surely expect them to have lower levels of belief in them, but in the scenario where they do occur we'd expect them to notice such miraculous healings at a higher than average rate. The latter is exactly what seems to be the case, with American doctors believing in miracles at about the same rate as the general US population (~70-80%) but reporting witness of miracles at much higher rates (~20-30% even among Christians vs. >50% among doctors)
)
