Many atheists dismiss miracles on the grounds that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There are different ways of responding to Hume, Sagan, and their imitators in that regard, but atheism is ironically self-referential in that regard. Suppose we grant the principle for the sake of argument. As I've often remarked, naturalism posits a universal negative about miracles. So it only takes a single miracle to falsify atheism. But in that event it's the atheist who is making an extraordinary claim. It's extraordinary to dismiss every reported miracle as a false report. Consider the sheer number of reported miracles. Not to mention the sheer number of unreported miracles. Few things could be as extraordinary as the claim that every single report is false, given the incredible volume, by witnesses of every stripe under different circumstances.
Comment has been blocked.
But according to naturalism, every reported miracle must have a naturalistic explanation, even if the atheist pleads ignorance regarding the correct naturalistic explanation. So while he's noncommittal on a specific explanation, he's committed to the general principle that whatever the explanation, it must be naturalistic. Which still amounts to classifying every reported miracle as a false report, because the naturalist precludes a supernatural explanation, and by definition, a miracle is a supernatural incident.
DeleteComment has been blocked.
They don't think there's any gap between what we know now and what there is to know in reference to miracles. They think we already know that every single reported miracle is false.
DeleteComment has been blocked.
i) "the fact that we still know relatively little of what there is to know" delegitimates "the notion that there are natural explanations for everything," for if we still know relatively little of what there is to know, then an atheist doesn't know and cannot know ahead of time that there are natural explanations for everything.
Deleteii) In addition, suppose a ufologist posits that, all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, human beings aren't procreated by sexual reproduction: instead, ETs create human beings by artificial insemination via their advanced but undetectable technology. Does the fact that that's a naturalistic explanation, combined with the fact we still know relatively little of what there is to know, mean the unfologist isn't making an extraordinary claim?
Comment has been blocked.
"agnostic chris disagrees. We have a big enough sample size, so to speak, of natural explanations that there's no good reason to think that natural explanations don't and won't apply to everything else we don't currently know."
DeleteThere are lots of good reasons to think natural explanations aren't sufficient to explain what we don't currently know. There are quite arguably limitations beyond which naturalistic science cannot venture. Take the implications of Godel's incompleteness theorems which could rule out a theory of everything. Take Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which delimits our knowledge of any system and may in fact further delimit it insofar as there are evidently a multiplicity of empirically equivalent theories which if so would thereby imply naturalistic science can't address fundamental questions in its own domain. Take the law of conservation of energy vis-a-vis perpetual motion machines. Take the law of the conservation of information as well. Take the interrelated issues over the mind and consciousness such as hard problem of consciousness, qualia, intentionality, the measurement of the mind which has no physical properties (e.g. no extension into space) in which one might explain all causes and effects of consciousness without explaining consciousness itself. Related, one can't conflate or reduce personal explanations to (say) naturalistic scientific explanations since these are different kinds of explanations. Or take the live possibility of running afoul of the problem of induction inasmuch as to assume (say) future means of knowledge (e.g. empirical science) will necessarily discover all gaps, that is, to assume that there must always be a naturalistic explanation even if it is not currently known. In fact, atheists often ridicule Christians for making God-of-the-gaps arguments, which Steve hasn't made here, but ironically in this case it appears you're effectively making a naturalism-of-the-gaps argument. And at the very least incomprehensibility lies at the very heart of much of science itself, viz. again the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, that which is illustrated by Schrodinger's famous cat paradox, what is energy, again what is consciousness, etc. What's more, many atheists a priori rule out miracles (e.g. Lewontin's divine foot), which it seems you're tenuously close to agreeing with even if it's supposedly only for the sake of argument.
"That said, agnostic chris"
At this point, and given how much he's arguing for this position, agnostic Chris sounds like he's still quite sympathetic to his purportedly former agnosticism/atheism.
"like every atheist he knows, isn't terribly interested in whether the claim of miracles being false is extraordinary or not. He's more than happy to leave you to your belief in miracles. He just doesn't want you creating public policy."
That cuts both ways. I'd be more than happy to leave agnostics and atheists to their disbeliefs in miracles, but I wouldn't want them creating public policy.
"We have a big enough sample size, so to speak, of natural explanations that there's no good reason to think that natural explanations don't and won't apply to everything else we don't currently know."
DeleteIn principle, the only sample size we need to prove the occurrence of miracles is one good example. This is not a question of what we don't know, but what we do know. There's a reason what atheists typically do is not to say that reported miracles are true reports , only giving them a naturalistic explanation, but instead deny that the report is true. That's because a consistent atheist is required to believe that certain kinds of events are, by definition, incompatible with naturalism. If naturalism is consistent with everything, then that erases the distinction between naturalism and supernaturalism. So it's necessary for an atheist to rule out certain kinds of events as irreconcilable with naturalism in principle. If he can't say what is not naturalism, then he can't say what naturalism stands for. There has to be a point of contrast for naturalism to be a meaningful claim.
"but since the technology is "undetectable" it...kind of isn't. It's not testable, falsifiable, etc."
Just like the atheist denial of miracles based on the hypothetical possibility that they all have a naturalistic explanation in the future is untestable and unfalsifiable.
"We have a big enough sample size, so to speak, of natural explanations that there's no good reason to think that natural explanations don't and won't apply to everything else we don't currently know."
DeleteBut what exactly do you mean by a "sample"? Consider crisis apparitions. Have we examined a large number of cases and shown that nothing supernatural was going on? No, that hasn't happened. There is no database of discredited reports which allows us to dismiss any future reports. On the other hand, most people, most of the time, are not aware of receiving information through paranormal means. So that gives you a very big "sample size". But it would be very unwise to dismiss crisis apparitions on the grounds that paranormal experiences are not part of the daily lives of most people.
"I guess? I mean, strictly speaking, it's a naturalistic explanation..."
DeleteIf they existed, aliens and alien technology would not be supernatural.
"(though it's to a question no one has asked; can you think of a real world example?)"
Misses the point. The hypothetical was meant to be far-fetched and ridiculous, yet it satisfies your conditions.
Comment has been blocked.
We've been over this ground before. The claim that miracles never happen, past or future, is untestable and unfalsifiable. So the parallel remains.
DeleteComment has been blocked.
Good to know. I'll take you at your word.
DeleteThat said, we've seen plenty of wolves in sheep's clothing over the years on Triablogue, as it were. One can't necessarily take everything at face value.
Anyway, interesting you say "I'd personally witnessed a miracle or two". Would you be willing to elaborate on what miracles you witnessed? I, for one, am definitely curious. Thanks in advance.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Thanks, chris. That's interesting. There's some correlation between infertility and endometriosis, but a causal link hasn't been firmly established. The relationship between the two is unclear. The majority of women with endometriosis are still able to become pregnant, but approximately 35% of women with endometriosis may not be able to become pregnant. And endometriosis can be self-limiting, regress, or even spontaneously resolve.
DeleteComment has been blocked.
Actually, I was just speaking generally. I didn't take a position in your case.
DeleteThat said, some "miracles" may in fact be best explained by natural explanations, while other miracles may in fact be best explained by supernatural explanations. All this is consistent with Steve's points, of course.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
"That's how I read you, I was just being playful."
DeleteOh yeah, I know, but I just figured I'd give a straightforward answer. :)
"Not judging steve in particular, but I'm not so sure about your last point in a general sense. I think people are more skeptical about the miraculous outside of their own Christian tribe. A Baptist is more likely to be skeptical and look for a natural explanation when a Catholic claims a miracle, for example. How would you differentiate that kind of skepticism from the agnostic/atheist's skepticism about miracles generally? It seems very similar thinking and methodology."
I can't speak for others, but in the past I've been skeptical about and even criticized "miracles" and like phenomena from fellow evangelical Christians. I've also argued there may be veridical supernatural phenomena occurring in, say, Catholicism when I'm certainly not Catholic. In general, I don't evaluate miracles "generally". I evaluate each on a case by case basis.
Comment has been blocked.
"But it's not a "hypothetical possibility." It's reasonable prediction based on several centuries now of real world experience."
DeleteCompared to millennia of real world experience that miracles happen.
"Illnesses aren't caused by supernatural means, they're caused by germs"
There's good empirical evidence that some psychotic behavior is caused by evil spirits taking possession of the human host.
"The fact that we don't have the specific explanation in this case or that yet doesn't negate anything. Past performance actually is a guarantee of future results, so to speak."
I already explained to you why naturalism can't be that flexible. Your comment is not a refutation.
Comment has been blocked.
"Then agnostic chris thinks you don't really understand what 'empirical' means"
DeleteThere's empirical evidence that it was caused by a supernatural agent rather than a natural cause. Naturalism can't afford to dismiss that distinction for reasons I've given.
"and thus that you couldn't possibly have anything to say that is worth his time."
Which is not my standard of comparison.
"Anyway, he knows you don't believe in miracles because you think there's empirical evidence for them. You believe in them because they stem from your a priori belief in the idea that the knowledge of God comes from the idea that God reveals himself."
Appealing to the mental state of the believer is logically irrelevant. Your devil's advocate routine wears thin.
Comment has been blocked.
"Do you deny that there are plenty of things that used to be considered miracles that we can now explain naturally? If so, then we're arguing about what color the sky is."
DeleteThat takes refuge in vacuous abstractions. But it breaks down when we list some specific kinds of examples. Consider some biblical miracles: multiplication of food, walking on water, instantly turning water into wine, surviving inside a furnace, surviving inside the belly of a fish, bodies returning to life days after death. No consistent atheist thinks these events happened as described in the text, but they have a hitherto undiscovered natural mechanism.
"Seriously? (this is current chris). I'm unfamiliar with whatever you're referring to. Do you have a link you can point me to? I'd be interested to read up on it."
http://wscal.edu/blog/a-pastors-reflections-demon-possession-and-mental-illness
https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/01/devil-may-care.html
https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/11/jesus-and-psychiatrists.html
https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/11/pandemonium.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/04/health/exorcism-doctor/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/01/as-a-psychiatrist-i-diagnose-mental-illness-and-sometimes-demonic-possession/
M. Scott Peck, Glimpses of the Devil: A Psychiatrist's Personal Accounts of Possession, Exorcism, and Redemption
Comment has been blocked.
"Even you (I presume) and current chris make distinctions between demon possession and mental illness, for example, that long ago Christians did not."
DeleteEdwin Yamauchi has argued there were at least 4 models of disease etiology in the ancient world. The first model is a deity is the direct cause of disease. The second model is a supernatural being other than a deity is the cause of disease (e.g. demons). The third model is magic is the cause of disease (e.g. witch). And the fourth model is there are natural causes to disease which could be uncovered via reason and investigation. Yamauchi argues many if not most ancient societies held to these etiological models of disease. Moreover, these models aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but in fact could be combined with others.
This exchange is a tar pit. Chris is at liberty to die in the tar pit. I'm leaving.
DeleteComment has been blocked.