The "science" of Miracles

You were right about "attributed" being part of the definition of miracle, but that turned out to be unimportant, as I explained at the end of Message 269 and in Message 276. Because science is tentative it doesn't matter that we can't conclude miracle with certainty. When the George Washington Bridge moves 50 miles up the Hudson, analysis could conclude miracle with perfect scientific validity since the conclusion is tentative. Tangle and are in agreement on this. Sometimes context makes it obvious that paraphrase is involved, and when it doesn't you can try one of these or make up your own:

• Whether they attribute it to a specific supernatural cause or not, (paraphrasing) "can't be explained by natural causes" implies supernatural causes, doesn't it?
• Whether they attribute it to a specific supernatural cause or not, (sic) "can't be explained by natural causes" implies supernatural causes, doesn't it?
• Whether they attribute it to a specific supernatural cause or not, when you say something like "can't be explained by natural causes" implies supernatural causes, doesn't it?

I would never say "can't be explained by natural causes" because some people might think that synonymous with "can be explained by supernatural causes." Of course my example of the George Washington Bridge moving 50 miles up the Hudson is made up, because Tangle and I don't believe there's any unambiguous evidence of miracles having happened. It goes back to when we were asking whether you'd be willing to discuss miracles hypothetically, or whether you'd insist on ruling them out out of hand.--Percy

You're going off in another direction now. The part of your reply in Message 295 that I was focused on was when you said, "I believe that humanity, human knowledge, etc. is all we can count on." That's why I said your reply reemphasizes how strongly you put your faith in humanity, and that from Phat's perspective it's all still religion, but with faith in humanity instead of God.--Percy

But we're not discussing something that is obviously just a not-yet-fully-understood scientific phenomenon like dark matter or dark energy, not an inexplicable phenomenon. Tangle and I have presented examples that are not explicable by currently understood natural or scientific laws.--Percy

And Tangle mentioned cherubs again in Message 318. I guess some of his examples of miracles have a religious overtone. I think Ringo and Jar's position is that all phenomena obey the laws of physics all the time and that "miracle" is just a term for something that doesn't exist and never happens. That's why I've been suggesting a miracle where the George Washington Bridge moves 50 miles up the Hudson. It isn't a not yet understood phenomenon. I just read about an example of a not yet understood phenomenon last night, where two black holes collided in the early universe but that such an event is so unlikely that it wouldn't be expected to occur in the entire history of the universe (several of these events have been detected by LIGO and Virgo). The bridge miracle isn't like that. It clearly and forcefully breaks several very well understand physical laws (gravity, strength of materials, entropy), it isn't explicable by them, therefore it's a miracle.As Tangle has pointed out, miracles are local. When a miracle occurs the laws of physics are not suspended or altered everywhere, just in the specific area where the miracle occurs. When the George Washington Bridge gently lets loose its mooring and floats up into the sky, the nearby trees and cars and people and buildings and Route 95 (the part not on the bridge) are unaffected. This is consistent with our concept of miracles, even though none of us believe they ever happen or have happened. But I'm just trying to make clear how we think of miracles. For example, when someone with a deadly disease suddenly becomes well, other people the world over with the same deadly disease continue to die. When a woman and a boy are run over by a car and survive virtually unscathed, other people around the world continue to die when struck by cars. I'm not suggesting that people should accept these as examples of miracles, but just to give a general idea why, though it's not part of the formal definition, that the general concept of "miracle" is that they are local.Then there's the question of whether breaking or suspending or inexplicably not following the known laws of nature is science. Our observations and experiments show that the laws of nature seem to apply everywhere throughout the universe across all time, but that's just an observation, not something that has been proven true. Should it be considered part of the definition of science, in which case miracles lie outside of science and are impossible, and all new phenomenon must be considered just science we don't understand yet (this is Jar and Ringo's position)?Or, since science is tentative, must we leave our minds open to the possibility that not all phenomenon follow what we call the laws of nature or even have laws, but that they still occur within our natural world, in which case miracles lie within science and can be studied. We can ask and try to answer the question of how and under what conditions the laws of nature are not followed. This is my and Tangle's position.The obvious rebuttal is that if science studies and comes to understand miracles, don't they become just another law of nature and therefore not miracles? Maybe, maybe not. If miracles are deterministic in the way of sending spacecraft to Mars, then I guess they're not really miracles. But if they're non-deterministic in the way of the two-slit experiment and wave/particle duality, if they occur without cause, then the label of "miracle" seems valid.--Percy

I'll respond to your three replies in this single message.First responding to Message 326: It's inexplicable by natural and scientific laws, and that's the definition of a miracle. This was in the context of where you said Tangle was "the only one" - I quoted it in the Message 313 that you were replying to. Obviously I meant to type "Tangle and I". The difference is the word "causes". As I explained, I wouldn't want people to think I was saying anything synonymous with "can be explained by supernatural causes." But I do - we're speaking hypothetically, or at least some of us are trying to. Hypothetically, how would science respond were an unambiguous miracle to happen, such as the George Washington Bridge moving 50 miles up the Hudson. It's fine if you don't want to engage in discussion of a hypothetical miracle, but you don't get to place limits on what can be considered hypothetically.Moving on to Message 327: In this thread we're considering additional hypothetical possibilities.Moving on to Message 329: Of course the examples of miracles we're making up have not happened. We're looking at how science would respond if, hypothetically, they did. We can't talk about real miracles from a scientific perspective because there has never been a scientifically verified miracle. We're asking what would it mean if a scientifically verified miracle *did* occur.--Percy

We can ask the question and try to answer it, because that's what science does, but we could fail to answer it. Tentatively, that would mean miracles (events inexplicable by natural and scientific laws) can happen. My intended emphasis was on non-determinism. Quantum mechanics was just an example of something that has non-determinism. In other words, just as we can't know which slit an electron will pass through, neither can we know when a miracle will occur or what form it will take.--Percy

An event inexplicable by natural and scientific laws *is* the definition of miracle. It may be attributed to various things, of which Wikipedia provides a few examples:

quote:

---

A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws. Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (a deity), magic, a miracle worker, a saint or a religious leader.

---

There's no reason that list of possible attributions should be considered complete. And it does say "may be attributed," so attribution isn't a necessity. Just as which slit an electron passes through has no attribution, neither does a miracle require attribution. Natural and scientific laws describe how the universe behaves in response to causes - the laws are not causes in themselves. For example, a moving cue ball may strike another billiard ball and cause it to move, but the moving cue ball is not a law, it is a cause. "Law" and "cause" are not synonyms. Why are you ignoring the word "hypothetically"? Of course the George Washington Bridge is still at it's original construction location. But, hypothetically, how would science respond if tomorrow the George Washington Bridge moved 50 miles up the Hudson in the way I've described earlier: gently letting loose from its moorings, floating up into the air, moving 50 miles upriver, and settling back down to the ground near West Point.Tangle provides a somewhat similar example in Message 337 that has a religious motif: A bridge being lifted into the air by winged cherubs on the command of a priest. But the title of this thread is The "science" of Miracles, not "claimed miracles." We don't have any scientifically validated miracles to discuss that I know of. If you know of a scientifically validated miracle then please bring it into the discussion, or if you know of miracles that have the potential to be scientifically studied then we could look at those, too. I provided a list to Faith at one point in the The Tension of Faith thread, she didn't like it (no surprise) but provided no examples of her own, in fact denying that miracles happen anymore, but anyway, here's the link to the list: Religion's Top 10 Astonishing Miracles. I liked #9, the incorruptible corpses, as the one that provides the best opportunity for scientific study.But there are usually obvious problems with what some people call miracles, like that they're something people claimed to see but there's no hard evidence, or if there's evidence then it's sacred (like the incorruptible corpses) and though people like you and I are sure there's a scientific explanation, scientists will not be permitted to study them. "Hypothetical" and "phony" are not synonyms, and I'm using the definition of miracle from Wikipedia.--Percy

It's the one from Wikipedia. Definitions from dictionaries are shorter but basically the same. Yes, agreed, I just said pretty much the same thing to Ringo in my previous message. But the definition of miracle isn't that which is inexplicable. The definition is an event that is inexplicable by known natural and scientific laws. We don't know what laws govern the nature of the laws we've established, so though they are inexplicable in this way, they aren't inexplicable by known natural and scientific laws. And a law isn't an event. I assume you're referring to the law, not an example of something being attracted to something else at a distance.
Since the law wasn't inexplicable by known natural and scientific laws, in other words, since it wasn't in violation of already established science, no. No, for the same reason. No, not miraculous, for the same reason. Agreed, but again, "inexplicable" is only part of the definition of miracle. I used a different example, but I asked the same question upthread. If we study miracles and find that they follow certain principles and rules, does that make them no longer miracles? My answer is yes, they could no longer be considered miracles. And it's okay that science at one point considered them miracles and then later decided that they weren't, because of tentativity. Yes, I agree that inexplicability is insufficient for distinguishing between the miraculous and the mundane, but inexplicable is only one aspect of the definition of miracle.--Percy

Such as?You're offering the same objection as Ringo - the definition I've offered is wrong, but in what way it is wrong is left unsaid. Of course it made an impression, which is why I replied to it, explaining why they weren't examples of miracles. Yes, I agree. But a miracle isn't just "inexplicable," it's "inexplicable by any known natural or scientific laws." The law of attraction of bodies with mass was not inexplicable by any known natural or scientific laws.Your point has a somewhat similar feel to the question, "Why something instead of nothing?" and you could follow this question with another more germane to this thread: "Is it a miracle that there is something instead of nothing?" It does seem inexplicable, but does it break any known natural or scientific laws? I don't think we know enough at present to answer that question in the affirmative.--Percy

Apparently we don't all agree that those phenomena, such as the George Washington Bridge floating 50 miles up the Hudson, are not miracles.And are you saying that regardless of the definition of miracle, you'd never accept any phenomenon as a miracle, so there's no point to agreeing on a definition? Given the brevity of your posts to this thread, I don't think you can claim to have explained anything in detail. I did reply in detail to your longest post, Message 336, but you responded to my Message 341 with just a couple brief paragraphs, leaving much of my response and explanation unaddressed. If it fits the definition of miracle then it's a miracle. If science advances and discovers that it wasn't a miracle then that's fine, since science is tentative.Let us not forget that this discussion about miracles is hypothetical. There seem to be two main sides. One side is that there can be no such thing as a miracle, case closed. The other side asks how, hypothetically, science would respond if confronted with an unambiguous miracle. Your contributions to this thread are so brief that I've just read them all a couple of times now while composing this response. Only one of your posts (Message 342) mentions dictionaries (keep in mind I'm using the Wikipedia definition), here's your detailed explanation: But I don't think the difference revolves around definitions. I think it centers on the reluctance of one side to consider miracles from a hypothetical standpoint.--Percy

Actually it does say that attribution isn't necessary. That's what the word "may" means, a possibility, not a necessity.
The Wikipedia definition says that it "may" be attributed, just like one might say that it "may" rain. The bridge scenario is not a hypothesis but an event. I'm using hypothetical in the sense of conjectural or speculative. So rephrasing, let us consider the possibility that tomorrow the George Washington Bridge moves 50 miles up the Hudson in the way I described earlier. How would science respond? But nobody here believes those are miracles. They're just "claimed miracles" of the religiously credulous. If you know of a real miracle science can study then it would be a welcome addition to the discussion, but if not then we'll have to consider what it would mean if a miracle *did* happen.--Percy

Saying "may or may not" just a more colorful way of saying "may", but they mean the same thing. "It may be true" means the same thing as "It may or may not be true." Look up "may". It means "expressing possibility." Wikipedia is only saying there's the possibility of attribution to some listed causes. But that's why I provided the example of the George Washington Bridge moving 50 miles up the Hudson. It is absolutely conclusive that known laws of nature and science were broken, which is the definition of a miracle. Science would tentatively conclude that miracles are possible. When I said "nobody here" I meant here in this subdiscussion, which would be you, me, Tangle and Jar. Phat is commenting on this subdiscussion, and ICANT as always has his eclectic views. He hasn't been part of this subdiscussion but has been trying to convince you and Tangle that miracles have really happened. I would say this is true of all miracles so far. But what if an unambiguous miracle *did* happen? How would science respond? Naturally they'd invent their own term for it rather than miracle, something like "noncompliant phenomenon".--Percy

Whether and how a miracle is attributed seems a minor point for this particular discussion, but addressing your arguments anyway... No, it's not. No, I'm not. I looked it up in the dictionary and verified that it means precisely what I thought it meant: expressing possibility. I've documented my interpretation. Obviously if attribution to one of those causes is only a possibility, then there must exist other possibilities, of which non-attribution is one. True but irrelevant. Your example uses "may" differently than Wikipedia. Wikipedia did not say, "The attribution of such an event may be to a supernatural being (a deity), or may be to magic, or may be to a miracle worker, or may be to a saint or may be to a religious leader." It said, "Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (a deity), magic, a miracle worker, a saint or a religious leader." You and NoNukes have both stated I'm using the wrong definition, but it's the one in Wikipedia, and neither of you have suggested an alternative definition.The numerous dictionaries on the Internet give pretty much the same definition as Wikipedia, though using different words of course. Many of them differ from Wikipedia in one aspect in that they unambiguously ascribe the cause to the supernatural or God.But I think it would be best to avoid discussion of possible attributions because it would draw us into off-topic discussions, such as whether the supernatural or God exists. You're just sarcastically restating your position without any supporting evidence or arguments. You don't believe miracles are possible. We get it. But what if a miracle *did* occur? How would science respond?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

All we need is a definition of "miracle" that we agree on. I'm open to suggestions for how best to define "miracle" for this discussion.--Percy

George sees an electron travel through the left slit. To what does he attribute the choice of slit? This makes whether something is miraculous dependent upon the observer's (rather than science's) knowledge and expertise, so it both isn't a useful definition and does disagree with Wikipedia. That's an odd objection. It would be impossible to sum up dictionary definitions that ascribe miracles to a cause without using a word like "ascribe." Because it isn't an important aspect of the definition of miracle. If a miracle occurred, how would it make it any less a miracle if the cause remained unknown? But the results are not inconclusive. I provided the example of the George Washington Bridge moving 50 miles up the Hudson, thereby unambiguously and inexplicably breaking at least several scientific laws, which is the definition of miracle. How would science react?--Percy