Are miracles an 'extraordinary' claim?

[Mithrae]

We often hear that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,' but are miracles actually an extraordinary claim in that sense? Obviously they are out of the ordinary in the same way that winning the lottery is out of the ordinary, but I doubt that anyone here is in the habit of demanding "extraordinary evidence" for the fact that people do win the lottery!

I'd invite consideration of three points in partiular:

• 1 > Miracles do not (or at least don't need to) violate the currently-observed patterns of physics: For example if a transfer of energy had ensured that the Galilean waters had briefly frozen beneath Jesus' feet there'd be no violation of physical law; but that radical reversal of the normal course of events obviously would still be a miracle, still be overwhelming evidence of external agency, even though we couldn't see which strings were pulled to get the job done. Even if the appeal to proscriptive 'laws' of physics were scientifically or philosophically viable to begin with (which it isn't), it simply doesn't apply without first assuming that the strings pulled were violations of those laws!
  
  2 > Miracles have been reported in many if not all cultures, in all periods of history down to the present: That reported observation of miracles is neither confined to ignorant and superstitious eras nor idiosyncratic of a particular cultural tradition makes the assumption that such reports never have any basis in fact considerably less plausible.
  
  3 > There appear to be hundreds of thousands of expert reports of observed miracles over the past few decades, even in the USA alone: A 2004 survey by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Religious and Social Studies and HCD Research "found that 74% of doctors believe that miracles have occurred in the past and 73% believe that can occur today," but in particular that "a majority of doctors (55%) said that they have seen treatment results in their patients that they would consider miraculous." Those results seem to be consistent with additional surveys in 2008 and 2010. Extrapolating from the fact that there are over 1 million doctors in the USA, we can infer well over half a million expert reports of observed miracles in that country over the past few decades.

Obviously miracles aren't very common; even if there were in fact half a million miracles in that timeframe (though reason would suggest that in some cases those reported healings have a 'natural' explanation unknown to that particular doctor, or perhaps even unknown to medical science in general) it would still only be somewhere in the order of one miracle per five hundred US citizens in a lifetime. Plenty of folk would go their whole lives without ever witnessing a miracle, and even without anyone they're really close to witnessing one either. But of course that's true of winning the lottery also.

By the arbitrary standards of 'extraordinary evidence' that are occasionally demanded on this forum it's obvious that no miracle report (or indeed almost anything else) is likely to measure up. Some folk have even said that if millions of Christians suddenly disappeared and the skies over Jerusalem were filled with armies from heaven with Jesus at their head, they still wouldn't consider it evidence of a Christian miracle but simply an alien invasion! There are always going to be alternative 'explanations' for any and all reported observations, however ad hoc and purely speculative those may be.

But does the rationale for demanding extraordinary evidence have any merit in the first place?

Is there any reason - besides naturalistic biases - for supposing that miracles constitute any more of an 'extraordinary claim' than winning the lottery or some other individually improbable but overall almost commonplace kind of occurrence?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by Mithrae]

First, what do you define as a miracle? Is it not simply some sort of event that has no obvious explanation? Or is it the claim itself that is in question?

i.e. is it:

1) We know for a fact that Jesus walked across a body of water because we have solid evidence. We just don't know how he did it.

OR

2) Jesus was claimed to walk across a body of water, so just believe it because my holy book says so. Please disregard the fact that people don't float on water while walking on its surface when in a liquid state.

So what are you asking here? People should jump to conclusions (it's a miracle!) about events we know happened or simply swallow tales with no empirical basis? Or both?

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 1 by Mithrae]

First, what do you define as a miracle?

The usual definition - what else would I mean? Cambridge dictionary has "an unusual and mysterious event that is thought to have been caused by a god because it does not follow the usual laws of nature." The purported miracles of Jesus are obviously among the best-known examplars.

Is it not simply some sort of event that has no obvious explanation?

No, I would think that a reasonable attribution of divine agency requires both a reversal or marked departure from the normal course of events, rather than just lacking a specific explanation, and some kind of perceived significance or relevence. Water turning into wine at a wedding when they're running low would be a miracle; some granite turning into quartz on a remote mountainside would seem to be just a wierd anomaly.

So what are you asking here? People should jump to conclusions (it's a miracle!) about events we know happened or simply swallow tales with no empirical basis? Or both?

Reading the OP question a little more carefully might help. But for a more specific, slightly different angle, consider the following claims as examples:
- a man walked on water
- a feather dropped as fast as a lead ball
- most of the volume of a chair is empty space
- an incurable disease was suddenly healed, contrary to the known normal course of events
- a man bought some paper for $10, then exchanged it a week later for $100,000,000
- a man regrew an amputated leg overnight, on a local holyday as a result of much prayer
- complex human consciousness developed gradually from non-conscious matter

Which if any of these are claims which a person might reasonably accept as plausible on the basis of a few credible/expert reports (books, documentaries, news reports etc.) unless contrary information becomes available, and which if any are 'extraordinary' claims requiring some unspecified/arbitrary level of 'extraordinary evidence'? And how do you tell the difference?

[benchwarmer]

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.

- 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!'?

- 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?

- 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!"?

- a man bought some paper for $10, then exchanged it a week later for $100,000,000

Was this paper a lottery ticket or toilet paper? Though with COVID-19 panic buying maybe both?

- 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?

- 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?

Which if any of these are claims which a person might reasonably accept as plausible on the basis of a few credible/expert reports (books, documentaries, news reports etc.) unless contrary information becomes available, and which if any are 'extraordinary' claims requiring some unspecified/arbitrary level of 'extraordinary evidence'? And how do you tell the difference?

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?

[Zzyzx]

.

[Replying to post 1 by Mithrae]
First, what do you define as a miracle?

The usual definition - what else would I mean? Cambridge dictionary has "an unusual and mysterious event that is thought to have been caused by a god because it does not follow the usual laws of nature."

Let's not ignore that Cambridge Dictionary ALSO defines 'miracle' as:

something that is very surprising or difficult to believe:
an event that should be impossible and cannot be explained by science:
something very strange that happens which you cannot explain:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... sh/miracle

[Red Wolf]

Phony Christian Miracles
The Apostle Peter, claimed that Jesus was "a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst" Acts 2:22
I say that these miracles never happened and I have the proof they never happened right from the Bible.
1) When Jesus was with his Apostles in the garden of Gethsemane, [Mark 14:32-50] when Judas and the men came for Jesus with swords and clubs, the Apostles feared for their lives and they ran away. ""And they all left Him and fled."" [Mark 14:50] Had the Apostles actually witnessed Jesus healing the sick and injured, walking on water, and raising the dead, they would have had nothing to fear. The safest place to be would be with a man who could perform these fabulous miracles. But the Apostles ran for their lives because the miracles in the gospels never happened.
2) Jesus told the people of his generation...."" "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet"" [Matthew 12:39] The sign of Jonah referred to his supposed resurrection. But besides this, Jesus promised no signs to his generation. Aren't miracles signs? So was Jesus lying when he said he would not perform any signs, or miracles? Or as I contend, this is proof that Jesus did not perform any miracles.
3) At Matthew 14:13-21 Jesus is with his Apostles and he feeds 5,000 men, along with many women and children with just 5 loaves of bread and two fish. And the Apostles witnessed, this amazing miracle. In fact they distributed the loaves and fish.
But one chapter later [Matthew 15:32-38] in Matthew's gospel Jesus performs a similar stunt by feeding only 4,000 this time with seven loaves of bread and only a few small fish.
But here is the amazing part.......When Jesus proposes feeding the multitude, the Apostles say to him ""Where would we get so many loaves in this desolate place to satisfy such a large crowd?"" Isn't this a dumb question to ask Jesus when they recently helped Jesus feed 5,000 with a few loaves and fish? They should have known that Jesus could make food out of nothing. I contend that this is evidence that these miracles never happened.
4)We are all familiar with the story of the woman who was bleeding.
""And a woman who had been suffering from a hemorrhage for twelve years, came up behind Him and touched the fringe of His cloak;
for she was saying to herself, "If I only touch His garment, I will get well." [Matthew 9:20-21] The woman says to herself..." "If I only touch His garment, I will get well."" My question is ...How did the author of Matthew's gospel know what the woman was thinking? I contend that this is just more evidence of the fraudulent nature of these supposed miracles.
5) Remember Jairus?
""a synagogue official came and bowed down before Him, and said, "My daughter has just died; but come and lay Your hand on her, and she will live.""
But Jesus tells the crowd ""And entering in, He said to them, "Why make a commotion and weep? The child has not died, but is asleep."" Mark 5:39
So was the child dead or just asleep? Did Jesus perform a miracle or was this just the story of a charlatan's trickery?
6)When Jesus saw that a crowd was rapidly gathering, He rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, "You deaf and mute spirit, I command you, come out of him and do not enter him again." After crying out and throwing him into terrible convulsions, it came out; and the boy became so much like a corpse that most of them said, "He is dead!" Mark 9:25-26
If the spirit was deaf ("You deaf and mute spirit,") how could the spirit hear Jesus' command to come out?
If the spirit was mute, how could the spirit cry out?
7)And when Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, imploring Him, and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, fearfully tormented." Jesus said to him, "I will come and heal him." Matthew 8:5-7
In Matthew's gospel, the Centurion comes to see Jesus and talks to Jesus directly. But look how Luke's gospel tells the same story.
Luke 7:2-5
And a centurion's slave, who was highly regarded by him, was sick and about to die. When he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders asking Him to come and save the life of his slave. When they came to Jesus, they earnestly implored Him, saying, "He is worthy for You to grant this to him;
for he loves our nation and it was he who built us our synagogue."
In Luke's gospel, the centurion sends Jewish Elders, and never speaks to Jesus directly.
John's Gospel has another twist to this healing story.
""And there was a royal official whose son was sick at Capernaum. When he heard that Jesus had come out of Judea into Galilee, he went to Him and was imploring Him to come down and heal his son; for he was at the point of death."" John 4:46-47
John's Gospel promotes the sick servant to a son.
These differences point out that the story is fiction and each gospel writer tells the story differently.
8)Six days later, Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John, and brought them up on a high mountain by themselves. And He was transfigured before them; and His garments became radiant and exceedingly white, as no launderer on earth can whiten them. Elijah appeared to them along with Moses; and they were talking with Jesus. Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three tabernacles, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah." Mark 9:2-5
Am I nitpicking if I ask how Peter knew it was Moses and Elijah with Jesus? Were they wearing name tags? How could Peter recognize them?
Elijah and Moses died long ago. So where had they been? """No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man"" John 3:13
So what proof do Christians have that Jesus performed miracles? Christians have stories written more than 40 years after the events that they supposedly report?
During the 40 or more years before the Jesus story was written down, the story was told and retold and retold and with each new generation retelling the story the storytellers added fantastic miracles that never happened.
But I have given you proof from the gospels themselves that the miracles are pure fiction.

[Zzyzx]

.

""And a woman who had been suffering from a hemorrhage for twelve years, came up behind Him and touched the fringe of His cloak; for she was saying to herself, "If I only touch His garment, I will get well." [Matthew 9:20-21] The woman says to herself..." "If I only touch His garment, I will get well."" My question is ...How did the author of Matthew's gospel know what the woman was thinking? I contend that this is just more evidence of the fraudulent nature of these supposed miracles.

Exactly.

A writer pretending to know the thoughts of people or their secret words is a literary device known as 'omniscient observer' – in which the writer has knowledge that is impossible to have known. The omniscient observer is used in FICTION.

In non-fiction, a writer does not know the secret thoughts and words of characters. (does not pretend to be a mind reader).

[marco]

1 > Miracles do not (or at least don't need to) violate the currently-observed patterns of physics:

Then they are not miracles.

2 > Miracles have been reported in many if not all cultures, in all periods of history down to the present:

Ignorance observes no geographical or temporal restrictions.

3 > There appear to be hundreds of thousands of expert reports of observed miracles over the past few decades, even in the USA alone:

"Experts" do not report on miracles - they express ignorance of explanation. If a doctor is surprised by a patient's recovery he has no right to deduce God was involved but he can say that something unusual happened, the explanation for which is not in his text books. Doctors, however much we admire them, are not in possession of all medical answers.

Is there any reason - besides naturalistic biases - for supposing that miracles constitute any more of an 'extraordinary claim' than winning the lottery or some other individually improbable but overall almost commonplace kind of occurrence?

A miracle, as defined involving gods, is completely different from the event of winning a lottery. It is expected that somebody will win; a miracle is not expected.
If we examine Christ's miracles and offer natural explanations we remove them from being miracles. Of course some sighted person could have pretended to be blind and got "cured". Lazarus might have been brought back from the dead metaphorically as was the case with the prodigal son. Jesus could have produced a lot of new wine by purchasing it. These events, many years later, might have been reported and refashioned as miracles.

If you omit god from miracle doing, and reduce a miracle to an extraordinary event, then of course extraordinary events do occur, sometimes by collisions of coincidences. What we take for granted today would surely have seemed miraculous 2000 years ago.

[Zzyzx]

.

If you omit god from miracle doing, and reduce a miracle to an extraordinary event, then of course extraordinary events do occur, sometimes by collisions of coincidences. What we take for granted today would surely have seemed miraculous 2000 years ago.

Exactly. However, religion promoters attempt to claim that uncommon events are evidence of supernatural intervention by their favorite invisible, undetectable entity. That is nothing more than 'God of the Gaps' thinking. As knowledge increases the need for 'gods' decreases.

However, many apparently prefer to remain ignorant of cause-and-effect relationships in the real world -- perhaps with a preference for continuing to believe tales told about 'gods'.

[Mithrae]

That is nothing more than 'God of the Gaps' thinking. As knowledge increases the need for 'gods' decreases.

That's a philosophy which many scientists undoubtedly hold also, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that it's true. It's a bit of a tangent to the thread topic, but it's worth understanding this: Explaining something in terms of some other unexplained thing might defer our curiousity a little, but it would only be considered an actual explanation by an easily-pleased mind. Anyone who's tried to answer a child's endless series of "Why?" questions knows that they'll pretty quickly run headlong into their own ignorance: Asserting that this ignorance is a basis for ruling out any particular theory seems rather laughable. If memory serves scientists are still working on a Theory of Everything, and that theory of 'everything' if and when it comes will account only for the baryonic matter which makes up ~5% of the mass-energy of the observable universe.

If reality were a pool table, we've 'explained' the motion of the blue and red balls by observing that they were hit by the white ball, and you are triumphantly mocking everyone who thought they were moved by an external agency.