Pages

Wednesday, May 20, 2020

How Sagan shot himself in the foot


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. 

34 comments:

  1. I was an atheist for many years (well, more of an agnostic, but that's neither here nor there for purposes of this topic) and what I would have said to you is not that the reports are false, but that we simply don't know enough to explain them yet. Same as not being able to explain everything about that UFO sighting shouldn't lead one to conclude that it's aliens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 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.

      Delete
    2. OK, sure. But that doesn't make him find the notion that all miracle claims will eventually have natural explanations an extraordinary one. Every atheist I've ever known knows that the gap between what we know now and what there is to know is...vast, to say that least. Which is to say, the number of miracle claims doesn't cause a problem for him.

      Delete
    3. 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.

      Delete
    4. Yes, but what I'm saying is that they don't find that at all extraordinary (the part of your OP I was addressing). If you're starting with the notion that there are natural explanations for everything, then combine it with the fact that we still know relatively little of what there is to know, then dismissing all miracle claims is nothing extraordinary to you.

      Delete
    5. 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.

      ii) 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?

      Delete
    6. i) 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.

      ii) I guess? I mean, strictly speaking, it's a naturalistic explanation (though it's to a question no one has asked; can you think of a real world example?), but since the technology is "undetectable" it...kind of isn't. It's not testable, falsifiable, etc.

      That said, agnostic chris, 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.

      Delete
    7. "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."

      There 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.

      Delete
    8. "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."

      In 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.

      Delete
    9. "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."

      But 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.

      Delete
    10. "I guess? I mean, strictly speaking, it's a naturalistic explanation..."

      If 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.

      Delete
    11. "Misses the point. The hypothetica was meant to be far-fetched and ridiculous, yet it satisfies your conditions."

      It didn't though, because of the "undetectable" part. We can't test it, can't try to falsify it, etc, as I said. Which makes your example more akin to your claim of miracle than a natural explanation.

      Delete
    12. We've been over this ground before. The claim that miracles never happen, past or future, is untestable and unfalsifiable. So the parallel remains.

      Delete
  2. Hawk: "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."

    No, Hawk, I'm just trying to provide steve with a non-hostile interlocutor, a sparring partner, so to speak.

    As for my personal situation, God's mercy recently brought me to repentance after 15 years of behaving like the Israel God's talking about in Jeremiah. And that's not hyperbole; it's the best description of my life I've seen. And that period was *after* I'd personally witnessed a miracle or two. I've heard it said the greatest miracle is when a sinner repents. I never really understood that saying but I can say that the fact that I'm sitting here writing this to you and not dead is only explained by...a miracle.

    I suppose I'm also responding to steve as agnostic chris because I'm still in the stage of reflecting on how I ended up where I did. How many times did I read about how the Israelites turned away from God after He did amazing and, yes, miraculous things to save them and provide for them and thought, how could they possibly do that? Well, know I know that it's all too terrifyingly easy. If one is as full of pride as me, that is....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good to know. I'll take you at your word.

      That 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.

      Delete
    2. hawk: "it were. One can't necessarily take everything at face value."

      Totally understandable.

      "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."

      Sure. My then wife and I had been trying to get pregnant and it wasn't happening. She was diagnosed with endometriosis and told that by a specialist with 20 years' experience that we should look into adoption because pregnancy simply wasn't going to happen. Then a myrrh-streaming icon of the Mother of God was brought to a local monastery. I'd read of such things but had never seen one and was skeptical. I went up to venerate it and still couldn't believe what I was seeing. We were friends with the abbess and she knew our story and obtained some of it for us. My wife annointed her belly with it when we got home and we prayed to God for her healing. She got pregnant the very next month. The OB was dumbfounded. He was sure the home test she used was incorrect and so he retested her. Still positive. I'm sure he was thinking just what agnostic chris has been expressing here but if he was, he didn't say anything. He just said he had no explanation for it and was happy for us. My son turned 19 last month and I'm sure he's the reason I'm still alive. I spent 15 years trying to ignore it, but he is my constant reminder of the power, goodness, mercy and love of God.

      But the fact that I could ignore it for 15 years (I honestly didn't think about the experience much at all nor, like most atheists/agnostics, did the general topic of miracles every cross my mind much. So now I know why Jesus said, "neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead."

      Delete
    3. PS, I found an article which references a First Things article where this particular icon, owned by a lady in Livonia, MI, is referenced: https://susancushman.com/icons-will-save-the-world-3/

      Then there's this personal testimony, which refers to women getting pregnant who were previously unable to, something I was totally unaware of at the time of our experience: http://www.visionsofjesuschrist.com/weeping88.htm

      Delete
    4. PPS, the story got around and whenever we'd go into the parish hall after liturgy for coffee hour, all the little old ladies would say, "Bring me the The Miracle Baby!" They never referred to him by his name, just as The Miracle Baby...lol.

      Delete
    5. 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.

      Delete
    6. So you're saying it wasn't a miracle because you have a natural explanation for it? ;-)

      Delete
    7. Actually, I was just speaking generally. I didn't take a position in your case.

      That 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.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. "Actually, I was just speaking generally. I didn't take a position in your case."

      That's how I read you, I was just being playful.

      Delete
    10. "That's how I read you, I was just being playful."

      Oh 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.

      Delete
  3. me: "but since the technology is "undetectable" it...kind of isn't. It's not testable, falsifiable, etc."

    stave: 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.

    But it's not a "hypothetical possibility." It's reasonable prediction based on several centuries now of real world experience. The world isn't flat, it's round. Illnesses aren't caused by supernatural means, they're caused by germs and so on and so on. 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "But it's not a "hypothetical possibility." It's reasonable prediction based on several centuries now of real world experience."

      Compared 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.

      Delete
    2. "There's good empirical evidence that some psychotic behavior is caused by evil spirits taking possession of the human host."

      Then agnostic chris thinks you don't really understand what "empirical" means and thus that you couldn't possibly have anything to say that is worth his time.

      "I already explained to you why naturalism can't be that flexible. Your comment is not a refutation."

      You explained why you can't accept it, which is a different thing. In any event, agnostic chris knows that whatever rational arguments you may try to make, you ultimately believe all this because you believe in revelation. So all this is really so much playing around that doesn't get to the heart of the matter. Agnostic chris doesn't really have a problem with the notion that the natural world might point to the existence of a god. And since what we don't know really is so vast compared to what we do know, he allows for the possibility of science reaching a dead end at some point, however many thousands of years into the future that may be, and having to acknowledge a creator. Which is why he's an agnostic and not an atheist.

      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. And since that's not anything one can have a rational argument about, or provide a rational proof for, he shrugs and moves on with his miserable little life.

      Delete
    3. "Then agnostic chris thinks you don't really understand what 'empirical' means"

      There'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.

      Delete
    4. "Compared to millennia of real world experience that miracles happen."

      Millenia of people who didn't have any better explanation for what they'd experienced.

      "We've been over this ground before. The claim that miracles never happen, past or future, is untestable and unfalsifiable. So the parallel remains."

      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.

      "Your devil's advocate routine wears thin."


      lol, fair enough, but this really is pretty much exactly what I thought. You haven't presented anything yet that would really challenge or even slightly bother an agnostic or atheist. (not that you really could, I don't think. As I noted to Hawk, there's a reason Jesus said some people wouldn't believe even if they saw the dead raised. Belief comes from God's action on the heart so even if an argument is airtight, it can and will be dismissed anyway)

      "There'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."

      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.

      And I apologize if this became annoying, but I do thank you for the interaction. It has helped me become appropriately horrified at what I became.

      Delete
    5. "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."

      That 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

      Delete
    6. "That takes refuge in vacuous abstractions."

      Not at all. Even you (I presume) and current chris make distinctions between demon possession and mental illness, for example, that long ago Christians did not. Not to mention cases of physical illness which may have looked like certain death to, say, a 6th or 11th century Christian, for another kind of example, and upon recovery to them it looked like a miracle, whereas we might know now how to diagnose the disease and never would have thought it life threatening in the first place and, thus, not miraculous, per se. We still give thanks to God as the ultimate author of their healing, of course, but we don't view them as miracles, per se.

      The agnostic/atheist simply feels there are enough of these to support a general theory of the matter.

      "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."

      I may or may not be following you here. You are correct that biblical examples are generally dismissed out of hand (unreliable narrators, what have you), but even if those biblical example were accepted as things which required explanation, a big part of what's going on here is that they simply don't care whether the explanations are undiscovered yet or not. The point is that they are confident that they eventually will be. Not that they care any more about our miracle claims any more than they care about the claims of ufologists.

      And thanks very much for the links!

      Delete
    7. "Even you (I presume) and current chris make distinctions between demon possession and mental illness, for example, that long ago Christians did not."

      Edwin 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.

      Delete
    8. This exchange is a tar pit. Chris is at liberty to die in the tar pit. I'm leaving.

      Delete
    9. Wow. I thought we were having an interesting discussion and I had no idea I was annoying you this badly. I will cease. Please forgive me.

      Delete