Miracles as evidence for the divine/God

TheMadFool

Almost, actually I think ALL, religions build up from the premise that miracles imply the divine. A standard definition of miracle would be an out-of-the-ordinary event. The more unexpected or inexplicable an event is the greater the attribution to the supernatural/divine.

I'm working from what I heard Christopher Hitchens said in a debate (paraphrasing): "Even if Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead, this doesn't prove that Jesus had anything to do with God."

In the statement above I guess Hitchens means that there isn't a necessary link between "miraculuous" events and God/divine/supernatural.

From a scientific perspective an inexplicable event simply sends scientists back to the drawing board and see if they can fit the anomalous data by tweaking existing scientific theories or inventing a whole new theory that does a better job at explaining.

However, the religious don't follow these, what I assume are, rational principles. They simply infer God/supernatural from so-called miracles. From a scientific standpoint that's jumping to conclusions.

From a simple logical perspective the reasoning of believers depend on the following premise:

ALL miraculous events are evidence for the divine

I guess one needs to show that that's a false premise. I'd like suggestions for doing that.

My own counterexample would be a modern 1st world citizen with a simple modern device, such as a camera, visiting a pre-contact people and by that I mean people who are stuck in the hunter-gatherer stage of human evolution (I believe there are tribes in Brazil who qualify). They would simply be struck with wonder by the camera which, in other words, means the camera would be a miracle. Yet, this person is not a God. In fact he may be a drug lord who fled into the jungles to escape capture or something like that. Does this serve as a good counterexample to the premise that miracles imply God/the divine?

Another Hithchenesque argument against such belief (I believe he quotes David Hume) is that which of the following two possibilities are more likely?

1. That the laws of nature have been violated in your favor

2. You're mistaken

So Hitchens brings out two solid counterarguments against miracles firstly and then against the inference miracles --> the divine.

Do you think Hitchens is right?

As a contrast to such religious views we can only see how theism is treated in philosophy. Miracles aren't referenced directly. To the contrary philosophers look for real world ordinary evidence e.g. the teleological argument.

This question and its answer is critical to all religions, all of which have miracles as their foundation.

alcontali

However, the religious don't follow these, what I assume are, rational principles. They simply infer God/supernatural from so-called miracles. From a scientific standpoint that's jumping to conclusions. — TheMadFool

Miracles are indeed a bit controversial.

In the Islamic narrative, the prophet was often asked by unbelievers to perform miracles to give them evidence of his contact with God. He always refused to do that. He said that his only "miracle" was the Quran.

On the other hand, the Quran does not reject the miracles described in older scriptures, such as the Torah and especially the Gospels. Denying Jesus' miracles in the Gospels would obviously have discredited the son of Mary, while he is firmly considered to be the Christ, i.e. the Messiah, in Islam.

The Quran rather chooses to confirm these external miracles in globo without elaborating on any details.

I am not necessarily beholden to the testimony in the Gospels about the miracles, but I am also not particularly beholden to questioning that part of the narrative. If the Quran feels that it is suitable to confirm them, then who am I to come up with a different view? What useful result would I achieve by doing that?

So, strictu sensu, there is indeed no pressing need to perform miracles while transmitting messages of transcendental origin. The prophet of Islam certainly did not feel the need to do that.

TheMadFool

So, strictu sensu, there is indeed no pressing need to perform miracles while transmitting messages of transcendental origin. The prophet of Islam certainly did not feel the need to do that. — alcontali

You mean to say anyone can be a prophet? If we remove miracles from the metric what's the difference between a prophet and a very imaginative, resourceful and eloquent story teller?

Thanks for the information about Islam though I'll need some corroboration.

Say I'm wrong about the prophet Muhamnad. Do you mean to say miracles aren't the pillars that hold up religion? If Jesus hadn't done his set of miracles and Moses his would people have believed? If you watch TV it won't be long before there's a report on how a statue was weeping blood or a cancer patient is cured by faith alone. Are these small snippets of human thought not evidence for miracles --> God?

If you say "no" I'd like to know the reasons behind your faith or the lack of it.

alcontali

You mean to say anyone can be a prophet? — TheMadFool

Not in Islam. Mohammed, may he rest in peace, was the last prophet.

If we remove miracles from the metric what's the difference between a prophet and a very imaginative, resourceful and eloquent story teller? — TheMadFool

No, what a prophet says, needs to appeal to an otherwise unknown mental faculty.

If rationality is about the capacity to use inference in order to produce statements of knowledge, then
It is trivial to argue that there are other mental faculties. A first example are the signals that the brain sends to the heart in order to adjust its rhythm. It is not under control of any conscious mental faculty. Still, it is definitely an important ability of the brain.

A second example is the discovery of knowledge. If access to existing knowledge along with rationality were enough to discover new knowledge, then humanity would either never have discovered any knowledge at all, or else, discovered all possible knowledge already. Hence, another, unknown mental faculty must be involved.

Do you mean to say miracles aren't the pillars that hold up religion? — TheMadFool

In my impression, miracles are not necessary in religion.

If Jesus hadn't done his set of miracles and Moses his would people have believed? — TheMadFool

The ancient texts are deemed to appeal to the otherwise unknown mental faculty. So, in my impression, yes, people would still have believed them.

If Jesus hadn't done his set of miracles and Moses his would people have believed? If you watch TV it won't be long before there's a report on how a statue was weeping blood or a cancer patient is cured by faith alone. Are these small snippets of human thought not evidence for miracles --> God? — TheMadFool

In Islam, there cannot be any new prophets. This is what has been prophecied. So, there will be no new people recognized in that class any more. The ability to transmit transcendental messages will not be awakened again. That was elucidated in the stream of transcendental messages transmitted by the prophet of Islam.

With the second coming of Jesus, however, the historical person is expected to return to earth. That is a firm expectation in Islam. We are generally deemed to be able to recognize who it is, when he will have come back, by using our otherwise unknown mental faculty.

god must be atheist

The ancient texts are deemed to appeal to the otherwise unknown mental faculty. — alcontali

I think I discovered what you call "unknown mental faculty". It has a name, too, alright.

The hitherto unknown mental faculty that miracles in ancient texts seem to appeal I call "gullibility to the max".

alcontali

The hitherto unknown mental faculty that miracles in ancient texts seem to appeal I call "gullibility to the max". — god must be atheist

Well, if you look at the alternative, you will detect gullibility that is much worse. What to think of people who believe that politicians are allowed to invent and enforce any new law to their liking? We believe that God has invented all the laws already, and that politicians are not allowed to further restrict our freedom.

For example, is there anything more gullible than paying more taxes, because politicians have increased the tax rate? We do not believe that we should pay, and when we can, we simply do not. So, who exactly is gullible? The ones who pay, or the ones who don't?

god must be atheist

We believe that God has invented all the laws already, and that politicians are not allowed to further restrict our freedom. — alcontali

This is one thing I don't believe. Speak for yourself. 1/2 of the world's entire population don't believe this.

god must be atheist

For example, is there anything more gullible than paying more taxes, because politicians have increased the tax rate? — alcontali

This is not gullibility at all that drives people to pay taxes. You are gullibilized by your own blind devotion to a god that does not exist. Taxes, at their most basic, much like laws, are necessary to alleviate the fatal fractures that would be caused and created by social forces. Why, do you think that law courts should be abolished, and let criminals run free? Or that schools be closed to the common people's children? Or that roads ought not to be built? You are a fool if you think taxes are wasted money.

god must be atheist

We do not believe that we should pay — alcontali

That's your belief, not mine.

Thou art the perfect example of a gullible person, who believes everything unbelievable.

Terrapin Station

What to think of people who believe that politicians are allowed to invent and enforce any new law to their liking? — alcontali

You don't believe that politicians are allowed to invent laws?

alcontali

This is one thing I don't believe. Speak for yourself. 1/2 of the world's entire population don't believe this. — god must be atheist

Islamic law does not allow for liberally inventing new extensions. Read the page on Sharia. The consensus of religious scholars will never defend the view that politicians would have the authority to extend Islamic law. That is unthinkable.

Taxes, at their most basic, much like laws, are necessary to alleviate the fatal fractures that would be caused and created by social forces. Why, do you think that law courts should be abolished, and let criminals run free? Or that schools be closed to the common people's children? Or that roads ought not to be built? You are a fool if you think taxes are wasted money. — god must be atheist

If you believe that you should pay taxes to the politicians, then feel free to do so. All taxes and mandatory contributions that I am supposed to make are all listed in the Quran, along with the applicable tax rate. For a believer, there are no taxes other than the ones listed in the Quran. For a believer, there are no obligations outside the ones listed in the Quran.

An unbeliever who does not believe that all the taxes he owes, are listed in the Quran, cannot be exempt from taxation on grounds of the Quran. Therefore, the Quran says that the unbelievers must continue to pay the taxes that they have always paid.

I can guarantee to you that Islam is by far the most tax-efficient religion for its believers. All other religions lead to paying much, much larger tax bills. I am not interested in these other religions (or views such as atheism), if only, because they are more costly without providing anything of value in return.

Terrapin Station

Islamic law does not allow for liberally inventing new extensions. Read the page on Sharia. The consensus of religious scholars will never defend the view that politicians would have the authority to extend Islamic law. That is unthinkable. — alcontali

That's the sort of "allowing" that doesn't amount to much, because what isn't "allowed" can be done, and with no repercussions.

So we'd need to clarify what "allowing" amounts to there.

alcontali

You don't believe that politicians are allowed to invent laws? — Terrapin Station

Of course, I do not believe that politicians are allowed to invent new laws. Is it even in my interest to believe a thing like that? We were talking about gullibility ...

alcontali

So we'd need to clarify what "allowing" amounts to there. — Terrapin Station

The Quran is a text with directives and guidelines, meant to be implemented by the believers in the text, at their earliest convenience.

Terrapin Station

↪alcontali

?? So what does "allowing" amount to here?

Politicians are obviously physically able to create new laws. They do this all the time.

Nothing happens to them in response to creating new laws that would amount to, say, "If you do x, you'll be arrested/imprisoned/etc."

So what does "allowing" amount to?

alcontali

Politicians are obviously physically able to create new laws. They do this all the time. — Terrapin Station

Maybe in some places they can. There are a lot of places, though, where that does not work. You need a very gullible population for that to be possible. That does not exist everywhere.

Nothing happens to them in response to creating new laws that would amount to, say, "If you do x, you'll be arrested/imprisoned/etc." — Terrapin Station

We, the believers in the text, do not recognize politically-invented laws. Still, there are quite a few countries filled up with unbelievers. That is where you will find systems of punitive taxation.

But then again, we are also not against that, because unbelievers are simply meant to be punitively taxed. As believers, we are not allowed in any way to reduce the taxes on unbelievers or to alter the systems of punitive taxation that apply to them. The unbelievers are simply meant to pay exorbitant taxes, because that is what they are here for.

Read the Quran, and you will find it all explained there in excruciating detail.

Terrapin Station

↪alcontali

So you're basically talking about practical nullification? What would be an example of this--a law is put on the books, but not only the citizenry, but the law enforcement arms of the government in question ignore the law so that it's the same as if it didn't exist?

alcontali

So you're basically talking about practical nullification? What would be an example of this--a law is put on the books, but not only the citizenry, but the law enforcement arms of the government in question ignore the law so that it's the same as if it didn't exist? — Terrapin Station

In practical terms, it often depends on the composition of the population.

Politically-invented law always applies to the unbelievers who believe in their legitimacy or behave in a way that suggests that they believe in their legitimacy. Believers do not believe in politically-invented law. Therefore, it does not apply to believers.

A person is tributary to the law that he accepts, only.

If you accept Islamic law, you can be held to it. If you accept politically-invented law, then you can be held to that. Hence, it depends on yourself. The Quran is adamantly clear that Islamic law does not apply to unbelievers.

Therefore, unbelievers cannot restrict their taxes to the taxation rates in the Quran. That is not possible, because they reject the Quran.

Terrapin Station

↪alcontali

So I take it there are no examples of this?

alcontali

So I take it there are no examples of this? — Terrapin Station

I just found an example, but in a different context:

Most Countries Have Environmental Regulations. Very Few Actually Abide by Them.
A new U.N. report finds that, to address climate change, we don't need new laws or regulations, but to get countries to comply with laws that already exist.

I actually like environmental regulations, but they would need to be vetted to ensure that they are also halal. I am wary of new rules that cannot be fitted into, and properly derived from the existing framework of religious law.

You can safely that statement to:

Most Countries Have politically-invented law . Almost none outside the so-called western democracies actually abide by them. A new U.N. report finds that it is virtually impossible to get countries to comply with politically-invented laws that already exist.

Shamshir

↪TheMadFool

Anything understood well enough may come to be appreciated as miraculous.

So anything may be evidence in the specified regard and rarities are no exception. Rarities do not serve to prove divinity, but rather show just how little is understood of it - if any.

Terrapin Station

↪alcontali

That's not very specific, unfortunately, and it looks like it's saying that politicians are creating laws that politicians aren't caring about, which isn't the same as them not being allowed to make laws.

alcontali

That's not very specific, unfortunately, and it looks like it's saying that politicians are creating laws that politicians aren't caring about, which isn't the same as them not being allowed to make laws. — Terrapin Station

To an important extent, it is.

For example, the legislature in those countries often comes under pressure from the so-called western democracies to adopt a new law. For example, domestic-violence laws sponsored by West and touted by western so-called NGOs. The local legislature grudgingly adopts the new law, but with a view of never, ever applying it. They simply do not want these foreign-import laws, if only, because they would have disastrous consequences. In the example, it would lead to a divorce fiesta, while they simply have no money to subsidize the living expenses of a new and growing demographic of divorced, single mothers. Furthermore, their population does not want these new laws either. If the bureaucracy or law enforcement really tried to enforce such new law, they would probably also have an insurgency on their hands. So, they just don't. In fact, they didn't even intend to from the very start.

Terrapin Station

↪alcontali

Even if that were the case, it wouldn't be a matter of not being allowed to make a law.

You could argue that it's not being allowed to enforce a law that was made.

alcontali

Even if that were the case, it wouldn't be a matter of not being allowed to make a law. You could argue that it's not being allowed to enforce a law that was made. — Terrapin Station

In quite a few Islamic-majority countries, they do not even make such new foreign-import law, simply, because it is against Islamic law to do that, and they can also afford to refuse to do that. Countries with lots of business with China are very much like that; such as half of Africa nowadays. They no longer create new foreign-import laws. Other countries do it anyway, but with a view on never enforcing them. It boils down to pretty much the same outcome.

The economic clout of China is changing the ballgame quite a bit. Almost no country gives as flying fart abou the IMF or World Bank anymore, because they'd rather make the deal with China. In that sense, China has become in some ways the long-awaited saviour of the world.

Terrapin Station

↪alcontali

We should also clarify that you weren't saying that politicians can't invent laws period, but that there are particular laws they'd have a problem either getting approved, recognized or at least that they'd maybe not bother to enforce.

alcontali

We should also clarify that you weren't saying that politicians can't invent laws period, but that there are particular laws they'd have a problem either getting approved, recognized or at least that they'd maybe not bother to enforce. — Terrapin Station

The simplest solution is to forbid the political invention of new laws. That also automatically solves the problem of new, foreign-import laws that these countries get shoved down their throats. Still, if they believe that their politicians are allowed to invent new laws, then as far as I am concerned, just let them. These new import laws will punish the population, but since they are unbelievers, the Quran says that we must not intervene in that process. In other words, it is not considered a problem whatsoever that very bad laws apply to unbelievers, because that is actually the way it should be. The more the problem is self-inflicted, the more we should encourage the process as well as its inevitable consequences.

TheMadFool

In my impression, miracles are not necessary in religion. — alcontali

You're absolutely right you know. I wasn't completely correct on this. My bad. I thought, the mad fool that I am, that the faithful are a bunch of idiots.

Take Buddhism for example. There's some miracles which the Buddha was associated with but Buddhism doesn't rely on that to make an impact on people. Buddhism appeals to the rational aspect (I sincerely hope that's not the "unknown" faculty of the mind) :lol: It's basic premise is life hurts and for avoidable reasons. How true.

Perhaps I've been misled by online videos. My fault again for not screening material I view.

That said, what if we were to purge scripture of miraculous material and instead emphasize the reasonable parts? Would there be anything left to instil or maintain faith? Now that I brought it up, what about "faith"? Isn't that belief despite lack of evidence? I'm afraid the "unknown mental faculty" is NOT rationality.

alcontali

Buddhism appeals to the rational aspect — TheMadFool

There is a rational element and a transcendental element. Quite a few people cannot assess the soundness of the rational element. So, they mostly ignore it. Use of the rational element only starts at a particular level of education, but everybody, educated and uneducated, will manage to assess the transcendental element, using their unknown mental faculty.

That said, what if we were to purge scripture of miraculous material and instead emphasize the reasonable parts? — TheMadFool

The Quran rejects that option. I don't know why, actually. It just does. The Quran just acknowledges it in globo without much detail. It refuses to purge the older scriptures from their miraculous material. It is not my choice, but hey, I instinctively trust that this decision is the better one.

Would there be anything left to instil or maintain faith? — TheMadFool

Yes, in my opinion, the miracles are not essential.

Now that I brought it up, what about "faith"? Isn't that belief despite lack of evidence? — TheMadFool

I have no clue as to how that mental faculty works. It just seems to be there.

I'm afraid the "unknown mental faculty" is NOT rationality. — TheMadFool

Yes, it is not rationality, but unknown mental faculties show up in so many different circumstances, that we cannot understand humanity without them. Another example. Can you explain why people like watching football? There is no rational explanation why looking at a bunch of people running after a ball would be so exhilarating. Still, it is.

I conclude that rationality is a tool amongst other mental tools. These other mental tools cannot be explained, because they are not rationality. If it were possible to explain them, then they would just be rationality again, which they aren't.

TheMadFool

I have no clue as to how that mental faculty works. It just seems to be there. — alcontali

For the moment I'm voting in favor of your intuition.

tim wood

A standard definition of miracle would be an out-of-the-ordinary event. — TheMadFool

This won't do. By this standard, any particular result of anything that is out of the ordinary has standing as miraculous. Or, maybe this is exactly right: the event as more-or-less trivial, but the miracle residing in what apologists, et al, can do with it!

This latter consideration muddies the water. What, exactly, is a miracle now? What, exactly, was a miracle then?

This from our friend the 'net: "A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency."

And this is a poster-child example of a statement, a definition, saying exactly not what it appears to say. "Not explicable..," in no way means never explicable. And, "is therefore considered," places the "miracle" altogether in the eyes and at the disposal of anyone who cares to so denominate it. On the basis of this modern definition, it's clear there is no such thing as a miracle understood as an inexplicable event due to non-natural causes. (Other definitions?)

Now, what, exactly, was a miracle? It appears to have been, again, a matter of someone's judgment.

If this thread is still about miracles, can anyone reference one for consideration? That is, not some event that someone says is a miracle, but instead one that on its face appears to be one.

Miracles as evidence for the divine/God

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions