An Objection to Ehrman’s Argument Against Miracles

lish

Bart Ehrman presents an argument against the existence of miracles. I did my best to regiment his argument below.

1. If an event is the least probable occurrence, then Historians cannot claim the event happened.
2. A miracle is the least probable occurrence.
3. Therefore, historians cannot claim miracles happen. (MP 1, 2)

Let's discuss premise 2. Ehrman says that miracles "violate the way nature naturally works" and that "by definition, a miracle is the least probable occurrence." However, I object to this definition and assert that miracles are just God intervening in our world. If my definition is true, we cannot assert that miracles are the least likely occurrence. It is unclear how much God intervenes in our world, so claiming that he never does would require a new argument or endorsing an atheist view. If you can prove God does not exist, then you can prove miracles do not exist (based on my definition.) In the end, you are back to the main question within the realm of philosophy of religion; does God exist?

For the sake of argument, let us grant Ehrman his definition of a miracle. Still, premise two is objectionable. Ehrman says that because a miracle is highly improbable, it cannot be asserted as historically probable because historians can only claim what probably happened. However, he does not recognize other forms of evidence, such as testimony. Many people claim to witness Jesus’ miracles, and their stories often line up. If that is the case, then there is evidence that makes miracles probable. Ehrman is only reviewing prior-probability rather than post-probability. Prior-probability is the likelihood of something happening before it has happened. Post-probability is the likelihood something happened after it may have happened. He is correct in his analysis of miracles in the prior-probability sense. However, after reviewing the post-probability evidence, reliable testimony, miracles are no longer extremely improbable. Furthermore, they are not the least probable occurrence. In addition, they might be more probable than not. For example, it is not against the laws of nature that Plato traveled everywhere in a helicopter; but because we have zero evidence of helicopters existing in Plato’s time, it seems like a less likely occurrence than miracles. Finally, based on post-probability, one could argue miracles are actually probable. For all these reasons, premise 2 is false, and therefore Ehrman’s argument fails.

Banno

Can you link a source?

Tom Storm

Many people claim to witness Jesus’ miracles, and their stories often line up. If that is the case, then there is evidence that makes miracles probable. — lish

That's inaccurate. There are no known eyewitness accounts of Jesus. We know the gospels were written decades after the dates for Jesus (Mark being the earliest) by anonymous sources and were oral traditions copied, translated, copied and translated. It is only tradition that allocates names to the gospels. Many Bibles even acknowledge this in the notes section of the NT.

Miracle stories and the story of the resurrection are myths that coalesced around a figure who probably did live. Myths frequently coalesce around religious figures, so that's not unusual. We can take the miracles described in the Koran as another example.

Gregory

↪lish

There is no one historical viewpoint. Which is to say there is no certainty about levels of probability for events that happened many years ago. A theist's history is different from an atheist's history because of their philosophies

180 Proof

There are no known eyewitness accounts of Jesus. We know the gospels were written decades after the dates for Jesus (Mark being the earliest) by anonymous sources and were oral traditions copied, translated, copied and translated. It is only tradition that allocates names to the gospels. Many Bibles even acknowledge this in the notes section of the NT.

Miracle stories and the story of the resurrection are myths that coalesced around a figure who probably did live. Myths frequently coalesce around religious figures, so that's not unusual. We can take the miracles described in the Koran as another example. — Tom Storm

:100: :fire:

(Happy Zombie Rabbi. :eyes:)

Paulm12

↪lish

Ehrman seems to be following closely to Hume’s argument against miracles. There has been a lot of discussion on this and I tend to fall onto the side of thinking it’s a relatively weak argument in light of commentary on it (although I do like Hume).
Bayes Theorem (in statistics) was originally formulated as a direct response to Hume’s argument against miracles by Price in Four Dissertations. Apparently, Hume respected Price’s argument enough to respond, “I own to you, that the Light, in which you have put this Controversy, is new and plausible and ingenious, and perhaps solid.”

Both Price and Hume were (and are) incredibly influential philosophers, and based on their letters, good friends despite their philosophical disagreements.

As you said, I think it really comes down to whether one believes in God (the sort of God who would intervene) a priori. But I guess I came here to advertise looking into Price and Hume.

Tom Storm

As you said, I think it really comes down to whether one believes in God (the sort of God who would intervene) a priori. — Paulm12

I think this is essentially the nub of it. I don't understand why people would seek to examine miracle stories rationally or scientifically. If Yahweh or Allah are real then reason and the laws of physics are irrelevant to miracle narratives, right? Isn't that the point of such tales?

Paulm12

↪Tom Storm

Exactly. Under the assumption that God exists he can bend/break the laws of physics at will.

One analogy that comes to mind is a programmer for a simulation or as video game-there are "rules" that exist within the game to the players but the developer can choose to disable them to change them to achieve a desired outcome at any point.

I guess the "rationality" part would only come in addressing whether the person claiming the miracle happened was lying, etc.

Tom Storm

One analogy that comes to mind is a programmer for a simulation or as video game-there are "rules" that exist within the game to the players but the developer can choose to disable them to change them to achieve a desired outcome at any point. — Paulm12

Nice analogy.

L'éléphant

Let's discuss premise 2. Ehrman says that miracles "violate the way nature naturally works" and that "by definition, a miracle is the least probable occurrence." — lish

This is simply confused. "Probable" is not the same as possible. If something is probable, there is high likelihood it will happen. Possible is simply "could" happen, like miracles. Please get that straight.

Marchesk

That's inaccurate. There are no known eyewitness accounts of Jesus. We know the gospels were written decades after the dates for Jesus (Mark being the earliest) by anonymous sources and were oral traditions copied, translated, copied and translated. It is only tradition that allocates names to the gospels. Many Bibles even acknowledge this in the notes section of the NT. — Tom Storm

Paul was the earliest NT writer in the 50s, and he did go to Jerusalem to meet with Peter and James the Just (Jesus's brother). Paul doesn't relay much of what is found in the gospels, but he does make a claim to having seen the resurrected Jesus, and he's aware of a chronological list of resurrection appearances beginning with Peter. Paul's conversion likely occurred in the mid to late 30s. So he was very close to the original sources, without being an original disciple or family member.

Josephus, the Jewish-Roman historian who did live in Palestine before the destruction of the temple, and led an army against Rome, does mention John the Baptist, Jesus and James the Just.

We do have Eusebius quoting the mostly lost writings of Papias that the author of Mark wrote down the teachings of Peter. But it's unclear whether this is the same gospel, since he also states that Matthew rewrote Mark in the correct order in Hebrew, however all of the NT writings were originally in Greek.

Paul doesn't mention an empty tomb, Judas, the trial by Pilate, and his list of resurrection appearances differ from the gospels, which notably leave out James the Just, appointed leader of the movement after Jesus died. But it does show that the first generation of Christians did believe in the resurrection and had expectations that Jesus would return soon. They were also missionaries, spreading the movement around the Roman empire. Probably first to Jewish communities and then gentiles as people like Paul joined and expanded the mission.

Tom Storm

↪Marchesk

Sure, but whatever claims Paul makes, he was not an eyewitness and didn't write the gospels.

Marchesk

Sure, but whatever claims Paul makes, he is not an eyewitness and didn't write the gospels. — Tom Storm

He's an eyewitness to what the earliest Christians believed. I agree though that the gospels likely added narrative elements to make a compelling story for theological purposes. For all we know, Mark just had a bunch of sayings and a few miracle stories to go off of.

Tom Storm

He's an eyewitness to what the earliest Christians believed. — Marchesk

I understand and you are correct, but my point addressed the gospels and the events/myths that inspired a religion, not the actual religion.

Agent Smith

If one contends that miracles aren't least likely occurrences, then they lose their value as proof of God.

I'm partial to the definition of a miracle as an improbability. God works via manipulation of chance. In fact, I find myself gravitating towards the idea that God is none other than Fortuna (Lady Luck).

javi2541997

In fact, I find myself gravitating towards the idea that God is none other than Fortuna (Lady Luck). — Agent Smith

But if we accept this criteria then we have to admit that God is just pure fortuna instead of mercy… and all the suffer or pain suffered by a priest or believer could be done without a real belief but finding luck in their actions.

God works via manipulation of chance. — Agent Smith

Remember Einstein’s quote: ”God does not play dice with the universe."

Agent Smith

↪javi2541997

Lives have been both immiserated and enriched by Luck or Fortuna.

Chance favors the prepared mind. — Louis Pasteur

In other words...we can eliminate Fortuna and her whimsies. Not completely though and therein lies the rub. We must always pray for God's blessing.

javi2541997

↪Agent Smith

Understandable. But what if I do not want to pray at all? I no longer believe in future or luck either fortuna. I think life tend to be difficult and painful for us, full of uncertainty.
This uncertainty make us to find different paths to survive. You choose religion but I do not choose anything.

Agent Smith

Understandable. But what if I do not want to pray at all? I no longer believe in future or luck either fortuna. I think life tend to be difficult and painful for us, full of uncertainty.
This uncertainty make us to find different paths to survive. You choose religion but I do not choose anything — javi2541997

Different strokes for different folks? :chin:

I'm not advocating for prayer, intercessory or otherwise. I haven't come across evidence that prayer is effective. Nevertheless, it does provide some comfort or, as someone told me, peace of mind and that can be huge advantage in certain high-octane situations like battles. Believing god's on one's side can work wonders insofar as a soldier's morale goes.

Anyway, back to the home page of miracles & the divine, what I find interesting is how thin the line is between improbability and impossibility with respect to divine miracles. People are willing to attribute the former to God, but are in two minds as to whether god can make the impossible possible and actual (vide the stone paradox). God, on this view, seems rather weak, unimpressive, and disappointing.

javi2541997

↪Agent Smith

Agreed that it is so interesting the fact that God seems to be weak in terms of randomness. Wether we like it or not, improbability is part of our lives in a good way. Sometimes we experience some circumstances that we can't explain and it is due to just randomly factors. Here we do not need to necessarily connect it with God. It simply happens. Otherwise, we are forced to destination and existentialism

Agent Smith

↪javi2541997

:ok:

Haglund

But what if I do not want to pray at all? I — javi2541997

No worries. Just live life. Make the gods smile.

An Objection to Ehrman’s Argument Against Miracles

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions