The Argument from Miracles

Firstly, I haven't read up on this subject so this is all basically just what I think and probably has as much validity as a coherent train of thought as the words found on the back of a cornflakes packet.

Nonetheless...

This is one of the major lines of argument put forward as evidencing the existence of the Christian god and it's something that interests me from the perspective of a non-Christian faith path.

There are a lot of problems with the argument as far as I can ascertain and I'm going to focus on these four, if you know anymore then let me know.

• the problem of observation
• the problem of cause
• the problem of intent
• the problem of need

Skeptics focus on the problem of observation – how do we know that a miracle has taken place, and indeed what is a miracle ? So let me put forward some of my own definitions.

What is a Miracle ? The problem of observation

A miracle is an event that enables the the passage from one state of affairs of an object to another state of affairs where the cause of that event cannot have a naturalistic explanation. The first state of affairs and the second state of affairs can be observed and investigated using a naturalistic methodology.

There are a number of differences between a naturalistic and non-naturalistic cause

• a naturalistic cause can be reproduced on demand, it is predictable, and it is falsifiable
• a non-naturalistic cause cannot be reproduced on demand, it is not predictable and it is not falsifiable.

This is leaving aside the most common complaints that the observations of the first and second state of affairs is usually anecdotal and some time after the fact with no certainty that the object in the first and second state of affairs are the same object or that the event is a single non-naturalistic instance as opposed to a series of naturalistic events that had been edited to produce a gap.

Thus the most common challenge thrown down to Christians - “Why doesn't god heal amputees ?” would only be counted as a miracle if the person with a missing limb has their identity verified, then verified again after the limb has reappeared and no significant time has passed that might be accounted for by extensive reconstructive surgery and recuperation.

However, no such challenge has been met by Christians. Instead we are presented with an anecdote of a person who may have lost a limb and then some time later has had that limb restored. We are unable to verify that the person before and after is the same and even if they are the same we then need to be assured that they haven't been through a naturalistic surgical procedure to reattach the limb.

Christians offering these examples seem to resent being asked for verification and examination in order to check that a miracle has been observed. Yet the requests seem no more than would be required to validate an insurance claim for property damage to your house. Is this your house, was it in a good state of repair, when did the damage occur, what was the cause of the damage, please provide three written estimates, here's your cheque less the excess.

In order to move on let's lower the evidential hurdle. We'll accept a standard that the Christians will put forward.

There was an object, it was in one state of affairs and then it was in another state of affairs and the cause appears to be non-naturalistic.

If any Christians would like to tweak that definition then let me know.

The problem of cause

Moving on to the next problem – which cause or which god or which supernatural entity is responsible for the event.

If we define what a miracle is by how it appears to be then Christians must examine all such claims of a miraculous event without specifying the cause. It should be possible to collect together a sizable number of anecdotes about those events and strip out the features that identify the suggested cause and to “blind test” those descriptions. Perhaps this has already been done.

The results of what a Christian thinks is a miracle from a list of Christian and non-Christian caused miracles where there are no identifying features would be enlightening. 

My own history comes into play too – I followed a different faith path before I became Skeptic and I was aware of claims of miraculous events from people who followed that faith path. I was also aware of claims from Islam and Judaism, Hinduism and Sikhism too. The anecdotes looked very similar.

In which case, if we accept that miracle is a miracle because it looks like a miracle rather than it can be verified to the degree that I've proposed then it follows that in a blind test it may not be possible for the follower of any particular faith path to identify miracles that can be assigned to one specific supernatural entity as opposed to another. That's leaving aside if we can verify that miracle – and do so for miracles from more than one faith path.

The problem of intent

Christians can, of course, rebut that by saying that the Christian god either only provides miracles for Christians and that the cause of the non-Christian miracles is the devil engaging in a deception or that the Christian god does provides miracles for non-Christians in order to fulfill some purpose.

Let's think about that – the devil provides miracles for non-Christians in order to deceive them. Of course this just raises more questions

• how does the Christian know that they are not being deceived by the negative spirit of a non-Christian faith path ?
• If the devil is providing miracles for non-Christians and god is providing miracles for Christians then how can they be differentiated ?
• As a side note if the devil is providing miracles then does it matter – is the miracle not the important thing ? Remember the oft quoted phrase about being prepared to make a deal with the devil for a positive outcome for someone that you have a deep emotional connection to.

Next, if the Christian god is providing miracles for non-Christians for some unknown purpose then how does the Christian explain that the major effect is to reinforce the non-Christian beliefs of those benefiting from and witnessing the miracle ?

The problem of need

This is not an obvious counter to the argument from miracles but I think it is actually very powerful.

When and why do you need a miracle ?

In the past people would have been praying and invoking their gods and goddesses far more regularly than they do now. Naked assertion perhaps, but think about it

- if you're ill do you go to your GP or the church to pray

- if you're poor do you go to a loan company or to the church to pray

- if you're under attack do you call the police or do you go to the church to pray

We have progressed a great deal over the centuries due to the developments in medicine such that if you are ill you are far less likely to pray because you will have a degree of confidence in the medical services being provided. Praying for a miracle, if it happens at all, occurs when that degree of confidence falls below a certain threshold. The difficulty for Christians is that for a great many treatments that fall in confidence does not occur today whereas it might have occurred many decades ago.

The need for a miracle has decreased. Without that need the justification for the existence of a supernatural entity has equally decreased. We simply don't need god as much as we used to. What we do need is a good medical service, decent housing, affordable credit, and jobs with a living wage. This is all stuff that we can influence ourselves. A god is not the necessity that it once was.

So, in summary -

• we cannot be sure, based on the quality of evidence provided that a miracle has been observed

• we cannot be sure that only the Christian god provides miracles

• we cannot be sure of the intent of the miracle provider

• we do not need miracles as much as we used because of the development of our civilization has taken over to satisfy those needs.