Reply
Wed 11 Oct, 2006 02:48 am
does the occurance of miracles establish anythingof religious significance? for the sake of argument, let us suppose now that we can be absolutely sure that violations of natural law have occured. what should we therefore conclude? should we, for example, conclude that God exists? or should we conclude that some world religion is the true religion (including science)?
as we have seen, 'miracle' has been defined so as to include the idea that miracles are brought about by a God. but can they be brought about only by God? Swinburne suggests that there could be circumstances that made it reasonable to say that some violation of a natural law is brought about by something like a human agent or agents. let X be a violation of a law of nature, then say suppose X occurs in ways and circumstances otherwise stronly analogous to those in which occur events brought about intentionally by human agents, and that other violations occur in such circumstances. we would then be justified in claiming that X and other such violations are, like effects of human actions, brought about by agents, but agents unlike men in not being material objects. this interference would be justified because, if an analogy between effects is strong enough, we are always justified in postulationg slight difference in causes to account for slight difference in effects.
but would a non-material agent bringing about the effects intentionally have to be divine? plenty of people, after all, have thought that miracles can be brought about by 'demons', 'spirits', 'saints', and other agents who are not what many of those who believe in God would think of as divine.
it is often said that only God stands outside the universe as it's maker and sustainer. and, if we think that a miracle is a violation of a natural law, we might, therefore, suggest that only God can bring one about. if God is not a part of the universe, he will not be subject to the constraints of natural laws. but could there not be agents of some kind (angels? satan?) who, although they are not divine, can bring about violations of natural laws? we might not suppose that there are any such agents. but how are we to rule them out?
maybe the most we can do here is appeal to a principle of economy. we might argue as follows. 'given that there is a God, given that God can be the source of events called miracles, and given that we have no other reason to postulate non-divine agents as sources of such events, we should ascribe them as to God.'
The only thing that a miracle "proves" is that human beings do not have all the answers, yet. Just think about what might have been called a "miracle" only one hundred years ago.
I stronly suspect that there are no miracles. I'm sure that in ancient Greece, someone occasionally claimed that he heard a statue of Zeuss talk. It's just wishful thinking, deliberate fakery, or things which are not understood but not supernatural.
they prove that miracles occasionally happpen.
Quote:does the occurance of miracles establish anythingof religious significance? for the sake of argument, let us suppose now that we can be absolutely sure that violations of natural law have occured. what should we therefore conclude? should we, for example, conclude that God exists? or should we conclude that some world religion is the true religion (including science)?
We throw out the law when we find a contradiction.
Some years ago a mathematician (I think) wrote a book about miracles, showing that the sheer number of people in the world combined with the sheer number of opportunities for miraculous things to happen to them over the course of their innumerable day-to-day activities meant that "miracles" (defined loosely as occurrences that one would give less than a million-to-one chance of happening) are not only statistically inevitable but surprisingly frequent. I'll see if I can dig up the book...
Like Brandon, I believe there are no miracles; I even believe that the IDEA of a miracle is meaningless.
Rockpie, begins with: "let us suppose now that we can be absolutely sure that violations of natural law have occured."
This suggests a serious misunderstanding of "natural law." The "laws of nature" are no more than the REGULARITIES we observe in nature; such "laws" are not to be taken as statutes mandated by some supra-natural force, whether that be a God or Nature itself.
Such "laws" are never violated because when we see "anomalies" in nature, we realize that we have to revise our understanding of "nature's regularities"--we have to expand the mental picture we have of Nature.
Now the notion of a miracle usually rests upon the idea of the supernatural in opposition to the natural. There is no such thing as "the supernatural". Such a notion only exists because of our notion of "the natural". Each gives rise to the other. Reality, as I see it consists of neither nature nor supernature. These are just concepts of thought, not of observation.
JLNobody wrote:Like Brandon, I believe there are no miracles; I even believe that the IDEA of a miracle is meaningless.
Rockpie, begins with: "let us suppose now that we can be absolutely sure that violations of natural law have occured."
This suggests a serious misunderstanding of "natural law." The "laws of nature" are no more than the REGULARITIES we observe in nature; such "laws" are not to be taken as statutes mandated by some supra-natural force, whether that be a God or Nature itself.
I find it very annoying that this has been made into a new thread considering that all of these exact issues were just thoroughly discussed in detail a few days ago.
Anyway, JLN, you are clearly using an improper definition for miracle. A law cannot be broken, all people (religious or non) can agree on this. But we would not define a word that cannot be applied without a logical contradiction.
Stuh, I agree that it IS a bit annoying that we have to go through issues repeatedly over the years. If it were not so difficult I would like to look up relevant past threads and just transfer posts to the present redundant ones. But that's not likely. And it is possible that by repeating our positions we refine them.
I'm not sure I understand your reservation about my use of the term, miracle. I never use the term, except when someone else has presented it in discussion--just as I never volunteer the terms God or supernatural; I find them meaningless. I was just responding to Rockpie's notion.
I assume that "miracle" is being used here as a violation of natural law. And as I've deflned a law of nature, it is merely an observed regularity (a well established empirical generalization) rather than an expression of Nature's conformity with cosmic statute. To me, an observed exception to what we expect as a lawful pattern of natural phenomena, an anomaly, is an indication that we need to revise (i.e., expand) our conception of the expected regularity. What has been challenged is our conception of natural regularities not the natural regularities themselves.
When you say that a law cannot be broken, I assume you are referring to some kind of iron metaphysical principle that is fundamental to Reality. I recognize no such principles, only the conceptual schemes we devise on the basis of observations.
JLN,
I think you will see what I mean if you look here.
See joe's post (3rd from top) and my response (4th from top) on this page:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=83864&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=10
Interesting thread. I don't know how I missed it.
Nothing in it, however, disqualifies my definitional statement regarding the essential character of "miracle": a concept without phenomenal substance.
I don't disagree with you there. But by your definition of miracle, it is impossible for a miracle to exist by logical contradiction, because a law is defined to be something unbreakable. Therefore, by your definition, the only way somebody can call something a miracle is if they are joking or don't know/understand the definition of the word. This is very different from a word like God, because although God does not exist, there is no contradiction by definition. In most cases when the word miracle has been used, it is not referring to the supposed breaking of a physical law, and it is not used in jest. Therefore, your definition is not in agreement with it's usage.
Understood, Stuh. In a world of pure thought, "miracle" has cognitive reality; but in a world of empirical experience, we must rank thoughts into realistic and fictional. My rejection of the reality of miracles is not logical; it is ontological. They are purely fictional notions (like gods, demons, angels, and the ether). As such, the idea of the miracle has no use value, except, perhaps, to cause mischief for the gullible.
As such, the question, What do miracles prove,? is meaningless. It's not even wrong. If anything, it's wrong-headed.
The above comments must be understood as having a limited range of application. All thoughts are fictions ultimately, constructions designed to make sense of experience. But some have reference to actual experience, others only to hypothetical constructions: they remain caught at the level of thought with no referents in our world of actual experience.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace