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.
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.
