|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Greater Miracle | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I just came across something composed by Hume that's relevant when debating those of a religious viewpoint. In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding Hume writes:
Hume writes: The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), "That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." In other words, always choose the lesser miracle. Hume goes on:
When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other, and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion. In discussions here we often find ourselves asked to accept claims of miracles. For example, "How could a dispirited group whose leader had just been crucified suddenly become joyous and enthusiastic while proclaiming that their Lord had risen unless it had really happened?" For another example, "Life's complexity is too great to have arisen by chance random events, and the unique conditions of Earth are too special for life to have just happened naturally, and so God must have been responsible." But application of Hume's Maxim requires the dismissal of all claims like these. Which is more miraculous: that a crucified man returned to life and then rose bodily to heaven? Or that the apostles lied, or that the Gospels are fiction, or some other similarly mundane explanation? By the maxim of the least miraculous, we rule against the resurrection and the ascension. And concerning life's complexity, which is the more miraculous: that an unseen God created the earth and life upon it? Or that the same natural forces we observe every day formed the earth and life? By Hume's maxim we must conclude in favor of natural processes. I wonder what those of religious persuasion think of Hume's Maxim. Is it science? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dman Member (Idle past 5046 days) Posts: 38 Joined: |
I'm a little confused. He mentions weighing one miracle against another and choosing the lesser miracle. But he weighs the resurrection of a human being to a human being not being resurrected.
How is the non-resurrection of a human body a miracle? I could be missing the point entirely, sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3266 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
This seems to me to be a different telling of Occam's Razor if you agree that the greater miracle will require to greater number of assumptions.
It could also be compared to Sagan's "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It seems things like this have been said and re-said for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, and it doesn't seem to sink in to the more theologically minded among us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richard Townsend Member (Idle past 4761 days) Posts: 103 From: London, England Joined: |
The trouble with using this technique in discussion with those who believe in the Christian God is simply that they a priori believe in the existence of an omnipotent being who created the universe, the resurrection of Christ, and the occurrence of miracles. This is not seen as something in need of extraordinarily strong evidence. In fact it needs no evidence atall.
Tbe only people for whom this technique works as an argument are those who not believe in God etc a priori. These are the people who least need it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3266 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
While it may not be convincing to people of faith because they already believe, by bringing up the argument, you force them to either disagree with the axiom or invoke special pleading. (Some may try to show how Occam's Razor supports their belief, but they usually don't understand the full meaning of the axiom.)
Which was my initial point, asserting the axiom does little for people who disagree with the axiom a priori as shown by the fact that these axioms have been cropping up in many forms and yet seem to do little convincing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I'm a little confused. He mentions weighing one miracle against another and choosing the lesser miracle. But he weighs the resurrection of a human being to a human being not being resurrected. How is the non-resurrection of a human body a miracle? The lesser miracle is millions of people believing in a fictitious story that originated with a group of downtrodden disciples whose leader was taken away from them. It's even less of a miracle given the prevalence of Messiah cults during the same time period.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I think the key issue people identified is that Hume's Maxim would have no impact on those immersed in miraculous thinking. Even though many miraculous thinkers would probably embrace it enthusiastically, they'd reach opposite conclusions from us. They'd reason, "What's the lesser miracle: that the apostles would lie, or that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended bodily to heaven? Why, that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended bodily to heaven is obviously the lesser miracle, so that must be what happened."
Such logic probably leaves many of us speechless or at least amazed that people who think like this are capable of not only making their way through life, but of actually using a computer. I find myself constantly amazed at how effectively ICR and the Discovery Institute use the Internet. Shouldn't they be sitting on high stools copying scrolls by hand? But I think all of us hold many contradictory beliefs. For example, I believe that I have reached my current high station in life (i.e., webmaster for this website) through diligence and hard work, but I also believe that it's the result of an accident of birth and geography that made me a child of a professional family in one of the wealthiest and best educated countries in the world. I somehow also believe that had I instead been born in Eritrea the son of goat herders that I would still have experienced personal and professional success instead of becoming a victim of the tumultuous events there. Yeah, right. So how do we deal with the contradictory thinking that all of us are heir to when it is displayed by Christians in discussions here regarding matters relevant to the debate? I notice we didn't have any luck talking RAZD, presumably one of our own, out of his special pleading arguments in the recently concluded Pink Unicorn discussion. How can we think we'd have any better luck with Christians? Contradictory thinking again? --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3266 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
I think the problem, as you rightly point out, is that we seem to have different ways of thinking. Those of us who prefer science to theology usually have a more logical, materialistic view of the world. "What you see is what you get."
The opposite camp has a more faith based view of the world, and, in my opinion, a more naive or child-like view of the world. It is my firm belief that they want or need to believe in something, and so they grasp the religion of their parent's or society. This type of thinking, I'm pretty sure, is hardwired in our brain genetically. People may be forced or "brainwashed" into the opposite side, but the mental dissonance (not quite the same as cognitive dissonance) leads to their "conversion." Each camp speaks from a different view of the world and so ends up speaking past each other rather than at each other. We ask them for evidence and they see that as a nonsense question, or they try to give the evidence they view as overwhelming and we yawn or laugh and say "You call that evidence?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2979 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi Perdition,
The opposite camp has a more faith based view of the world, and, in my opinion, a more naive or child-like view of the world. It is my firm belief that they want or need to believe in something, and so they grasp the religion of their parent's or society. While I agree that those with a specific religion have a higher faith based position, it's key to point out that they only hold these faith based beliefs in one particular relgion. Many times Christians will use the very same argument that atheists use against them when judging another religion, or miraculous claim. This is where I see (1) religious hypocrisy, and (2) fundametal human logic. However, it contradicts itself when viewing miracles and religion as a whole, since they choose one over the other. As with RAZD, he has no problem rejecting Zues, Allah, or Jesus, however holds a different logical reasoning when analizing his own beliefs.
We ask them for evidence and they see that as a nonsense question, or they try to give the evidence they view as overwhelming and we yawn or laugh and say "You call that evidence?" Likewise, they apply the same "show me the evidence" when one makes a claim for UFO's or other dieties actively playing a role in nature. It's a very hypocitical position that people of faith hold when they accept one specific miracle/god/supernatural force but then reject others on the basis of lack of objective evidence. In the words of Rick James: "Faith* is one hell of a drug." *Rick James said cocaine, but you get the point. "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3266 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
I completely agree...it comes down to what I sort of consider the fundamentalist gene or mindset, if you will. This means the person in question has a brain or mind set up such that they have to have something greater than themselves to believe in. They can't accept that there may not be anything greater and that even the definition of greater is a subjective term. To that end, they latch onto the faith that gives them what they want and then block off anything that isn't consistent with that belief. In this country, it is mostly Christian sects, in the middle east, Africa and parts of Asia, it's the Muslim faith.
For people who are brought up in a household or group for whom religion isn't a mjaor thing, they either get drawn in to a cult, a religion they have some other interaction with, either through the internet, TV or just the church down the street. Some people latch on to alien abduction claims or new age beliefs. The basic unifier, though, is that they arbitrarily pick one thing to believe to the exclusion of everything else, then become unable to honestly consider opposition to their claims. Often, they lob the same charge at those of us who follow science, but they don't see the inherent differences. AbE: I'm not saying all people who follow a particular religion or faith are of this mind set, just the fundamentalists out there who are unable to consider differing viewpoints and perhaps adjust their beliefs to new informatrion. Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
But I think all of us hold many contradictory beliefs. Yep. And I think your example of the inflated opinion we each have of our own abilities shaping our destinies is a good example of this.
So how do we deal with the contradictory thinking that all of us are heir to when it is displayed by Christians in discussions here regarding matters relevant to the debate? I notice we didn't have any luck talking RAZD, presumably one of our own, out of his special pleading arguments in the recently concluded Pink Unicorn discussion. How can we think we'd have any better luck with Christians? Contradictory thinking again? Whilst the example you gave of the resurrection etc. is more extreme and thus "obvious" I think that the argument of "simplicity" or "least miraculous" is not so clear cut in many other cases. Far be it for me to speak for RAZD (I am not sure he would appreciate that from me) but it could be argued that the simplest explanation for perceived experiences of the supernatural is to accept that the supernatural exists. Likewise those who believe in God (without necessarily being absolute biblical literalists) might (and I think I have seen this argument here at EvC from the likes of Rob and Iano) well make the claim that God is simplicity and that God is by some sort of definition the simplest and least miraculous argument. Don't get me wrong. I am not putting forward these positions. There are numerous flaws I would be happy to point out to anyone who did want to go down that route. My point is that the theistic position is not always able to be so trivially dismissed if the person holding that position is willing and able to reshape the argument into the whole area of what is meant by "simplest" or "least miraculous". These are arguably subjective terms that open the gates to valid debate on these issues. Factor in this potential complexity of showing why these theistic positions are requiring of greater "complexity" or "miraculousness" in some sort of objective terms and combine this with the ability of us all to self contradict anyway and you end up with a position that really takes some dismantling. A position strong enough that even those who are obviously intelligent are able to retain whilst clinging onto the idea that it is intellectually justified. In summary - All I am saying is that if the argument were as simple as you seem to be suggesting there would be very little debate left to have. By adding some extra layers of argument on top I can see how even intelligent theists can convince themselves that the argument of "least miraculous" applies perfectly to their beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Hi Percy
Percy writes: For another example, "Life's complexity is too great to have arisen by chance random events, and the unique conditions of Earth are too special for life to have just happened naturally, and so God must have been responsible." I don't think that you can dismiss that argument that easily. Firstly, rather than using the term God which is too limiting for this discussion, we should use a term like a creative intelligence. We see natural forces at work around us but do we ever observe a natural force that is capable of creating the first cell? To believe that the first cell came into existence by some chemical accident requires in my view a great deal more faith than the idea that there is a creative intelligence behind its existence, and this is after realizing the degree of fine tuning required to have a universe with a planet that can actually support life in the first place. However, we have to believe even more than that. We also have to believe that through a completely undesigned and unguided evolutionary process sentient beings have evolved from that initial cell. I can't muster up that much faith to believe all of that. (I guess I can be called a Theistic Evolutionist in that I accept evolutionary theory, but only because it is accepted by the vast majority of biologists and not because I can accept or reject it based on my own knowledge.)
Percy writes: But application of Hume's Maxim requires the dismissal of all claims like these. Which is more miraculous: that a crucified man returned to life and then rose bodily to heaven? Or that the apostles lied, or that the Gospels are fiction, or some other similarly mundane explanation? By the maxim of the least miraculous, we rule against the resurrection and the ascension. Once one comes to the conclusion that there is an intelligence behind this world, and this universe's existence, then we have already accepted the fact that there was at least one so-called miracle. If this intelligence is capable of creating all that we see then maybe other much simpler miracles, such as a resurrection, don't seem quite so unlikely. Also it would seem to me that if there is an intelligence responsible for our creation it seems likely that this intelligence will more likely than not have an ongoing interest in what is happening with his creation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
GDR writes: To believe that the first cell came into existence by some chemical accident requires in my view a great deal more faith... Probably very few who are familiar with current scientific thinking about abiogenesis think that life required an unlikely chemical accident. In a sense this would be a type of special pleading. Just as science does not believe that man holds a special place amidst life on this planet, nor that our planet occupies a special place at the center of the universe, science does not think that life itself is the beneficiary of some special formative event.
...and this is after realizing the degree of fine tuning required to have a universe with a planet that can actually support life in the first place. Approximately 99.99999999999% of the universe is hostile to life. I have no idea how many 9's I should actually have used.
However, we have to believe even more than that. We also have to believe that through a completely undesigned and unguided evolutionary process sentient beings have evolved from that initial cell. If we weren't here and the most intelligent form of life on the planet were chimpanzees, are chimps still too sentient to have come about through an "undesigned and unguided evolutionary process?" If your answer is that even chimps are too intelligent to be the result of evolution, then what if mammals weren't here and the most intelligent form of life on the planet were iguanas. Are they still too sentient to have come about through an "undesigned and unguided evolutionary process?" If your answer is again yes, then what if reptiles weren't here and the most intelligent form of life on the planet were sea bass. Are they still too sentient to have come about through an "undesigned and unguided evolutionary process?" You can see where I'm going here. Once the first primitive nervous system has evolved, what's to prevent further evolution of increasing capability and complexity? The chimp brain is smaller and simpler than our own, but it's still built on much the same plan as our own. What shortcoming of evolution is there that precludes the addition of more neurons and emergence of new functions for the new regions? I'll add the observation that the regions of the brain dedicated to sight are quickly adopted by other functions like sound and touch. Wouldn't evolution select those individuals with natural variations that led their very slightly larger brains to use the new brain matter in advantageous ways?
Once one comes to the conclusion that there is an intelligence behind this world, and this universe's existence, then we have already accepted the fact that there was at least one so-called miracle. If this intelligence is capable of creating all that we see then maybe other much simpler miracles, such as a resurrection, don't seem quite so unlikely. This is the old "If I can't explain it, it's a miracle" position. This has been man's approach from the beginning of time, and it's why over time we've found less and less for God to do. At one time God caused weather and earthquakes and moved the Sun across the sky, but now we understand these things and much else, so what is left for God to do? It's no coincidence that for people like yourself the list of God's tasks is identical to the list of things for which we do not yet have scientific explanations, a list that grows shorter every year. Can you really have any confidence in a list that has to be revised downward so frequently? (At least it's not like the creationist list that includes many things for which we've long had scientific answers.) --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Percy writes: This is the old "If I can't explain it, it's a miracle" position. This has been man's approach from the beginning of time, and it's why over time we've found less and less for God to do. At one time God caused weather and earthquakes and moved the Sun across the sky, but now we understand these things and much else, so what is left for God to do? It's no coincidence that for people like yourself the list of God's tasks is identical to the list of things for which we do not yet have scientific explanations, a list that grows shorter every year. Can you really have any confidence in a list that has to be revised downward so frequently? (At least it's not like the creationist list that includes many things for which we've long had scientific answers.) Not at all. Let's say that science can come up with an explanation for the existence of the first cell. Let's say that science can even reproduce by experiment the creation of a cell. That still does not explain "why" it happened. For that matter; why is there something instead of nothing? Just as in the case of evolution, where there is sufficient evidence to explain a process of what happened, it has nothing to say as to "why" it happened. I believe that the evolutionary process was at the very least designed to happen in the manner that it did. (I also believe it was guided but that isn't the point.) Just as in the watch example. If science can explain how abiogenesis happened then great, but it still doesn't explain why it happened. To say that abiogenesis and/or evolution happened without any external influence is just as much a matter of faith as to say that it was.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024