Religious Miracles

[AuntShecky]

The most famous case is of physicist Stephen Hawkings wondering out loud in one of his books if we might soon know "the mind of God".

I thought it was Einstein.

Edited 11/9/10: Actually, you may be right on this one. Einstein was the one who said that "God does not play dice with the Universe."

I've been reading online articles which contend that Dr.
Hawking's original stated stance on religion seems to have changed somewhat from what it was in A Brief History of Time to his opinion on the matter in the latest work.

Here's are some listings:

(This article refutes that Stephen Hawking is an atheist)
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9501/bigbang2.html

The following passage is from this web page
"junk science" in The Grand Design
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/sep/10090704.html
(I caution you that the author of that article has a pro-religious ax to grind.)
Hawking:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."


http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-l...e-the-universe

This one is really wonky:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...h/hawking.html

Far be it from me, a lifelong sufferer of math anxiety, to take issue with Dr. Hawking's findings, but what I find amusing is that he places more credence in the probability
of creatures from other planets invading earth than he does on the existence of a Supreme Being. I hasten to repeat that's up to him and his right. But I still think it's a little peculiar.

[hoope]

What then, of people "die" and are brought back with no NDE? How do you determine which is a miraculous escape and which is due to medical science?



As far as I can tell, theists use them as evidence for god. Atheists have differing opinions, but rationalists would use them as evidence of the brain doing odd things due to oxygen deprivation/CO2 poisoning/other things or any combination thereof.

It's not like we can do much research on it!

Well maybe YESNO .. had a point in here.. coz yes there are people who are saved from an unexplained death experience .. and you don't need to tell me that it don't happen coz am nurse and i saw it. When doctors can't do anything , and all the monitors show that this patient won't survive.. BUT HE DOES ! Its a miracle.. or in fact a superior power acted. Something that we can't have any hand in. It's just not explained and they live and its there.

However, this type of miracle is different from that we are discussing , we are talking about mircles that prophets had.. miracles that Moses did and Jesus too.. Miracles that as BienvenuJDC were to proof something , to prove the power God and that he existed.

I believe that God had a purpose for miracles which was to establish His communication to man. When He sent Christ to establish Christianity, He confirmed the things with miracles, but once they were confirmed there was no longer a need for additional miracles. I don't believe in present day miracles.

[Ecurb]

The overwhelming majority of rationalists - people who believe in evidential/epistemological approach - don't dismiss anything out of hand, they evaluate the evidence.

In terms of evidence of the supernatural, we're still waiting.

Huh? There's plenty of evidence for the supernatural -- it's just not "hard"
enough to suit you. Evidence includes: eye witness accounts, written records, etc. etc. Of course if we demand "scientific" evidence for the supernatural, we won't find it. That's because "science" is specifically designed to examine the natural world.

What's strange (to me) is to deny that there is any evidence. If we were in a court of law, on what grounds would we deny that Doubting Thomas's personal testimony of feeling the holes in Jesus' hands constitutes "evidence". I'll grant that we need not find the evidence persuasive -- but surely it constitutes evidence, and would not be excluded by any reasonable judge.

[YesNo]

As far as I can tell, theists use them as evidence for god. Atheists have differing opinions, but rationalists would use them as evidence of the brain doing odd things due to oxygen deprivation/CO2 poisoning/other things or any combination thereof.

I suspect that Christians could very easily have problems with near-death experiences.

Why?

Because people who are not Christians, not even religious, have positive near-death experiences. If Jesus is the only way, how is that possible? It also looks like no one needs to wait for a final judgment to occur. So how does that sync up with the book of Revelation?

I also think Buddhists would have problems with NDEs considering their "non-Atman" approach to the "soul", but I am not as familiar with that religion.

Consider the original question of this thread: Do religious miracles become less spectacular and more "believable" as we get closer to the present time? What can be more spectacular than the "miracle" of resurrection especially if the person having the experience tells you they were "sent back"?

I don't think that NDEs mean that there is a God or even a bunch of Gods that fit any particular theology. They mean that the world is far more mysterious, and perhaps far more friendly, than most of us realize.

[papayahed]

I suspect that Christians could very easily have problems with near-death experiences.

Why?

Because people who are not Christians, not even religious, have positive near-death experiences. If Jesus is the only way, how is that possible? It also looks like no one needs to wait for a final judgment to occur. So how does that sync up with the book of Revelation?

Let's not forget that "near death experiences" have also been experienced by pilots undergoing G-force tests. They are know where near death yet they have reported the same type of experiences.

[YesNo]

Let's not forget that "near death experiences" have also been experienced by pilots undergoing G-force tests. They are know where near death yet they have reported the same type of experiences.

Yes, I agree.

I think it was Raymond Moody who coined the word "near-death experience" in a book called Life After Life. He also was looking for ways to simulate the experience without having to actually die.

Perhaps people who "meditate" experience something like this as well. I don't know.

If I understood your concern, I agree that the experience is "natural" and "normal". It is only "supernatural" or "paranormal" or even "miraculous" for those who find dying and coming back to life later to be an impossibility or something only a God can perform.

There is an early account of a near-death experience in Plato's Republic, Book 10. I think the second half and is known as "the myth of Er": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_Er . Plato doesn't look at it as miraculous, but builds a theory of reincarnation upon it based on Er's account.

[The Atheist]

I think it’s important to point out even though you’re not making this error, just because there is no evidence for a claim does not mean the claim is false: was the world flat even when we had no evidence that it was round? A rationalist cannot dismiss anything unless there is evidence that dismisses it too.

I'd really appreciate it if you'd actually read my posts before replying to them and telling me I was wrong, before paraphrasing what I said.

I specifically stated, and I quote:

The overwhelming majority of rationalists - people who believe in evidential/epistemological approach - don't dismiss anything out of hand, they evaluate the evidence.

Your comment doesn't relate to what I said at all, and in fact is a mere re-phrasing of my position.

Please note the bolded pieces.

Well maybe YESNO .. had a point in here.. coz yes there are people who are saved from an unexplained death experience .. and you don't need to tell me that it don't happen coz am nurse and i saw it.

No, I can tell you it sometimes doesn't happen thanks to evidence from those who have "died" as much as anyone experiencing an NDE. Kerry Packer is a famous example of one person who died after a heart attack, was resuscitated and reported nothing at all. I know of other examples, but he's one publicly-known case where his comments were public and widely-reported.

When doctors can't do anything , and all the monitors show that this patient won't survive.. BUT HE DOES ! Its a miracle.. or in fact a superior power acted. Something that we can't have any hand in. It's just not explained and they live and its there.

No.

Even the Catholic church, with its team of people paid to find miracles only manage to find very rare cases of what they consider "miraculous" healing.

I have to say that I find your language and claims of being a nurse are somewhat at odds. I cannot think of case where a monitor would show that a patient will not survive. Unless some smart company has invented a new "life prediction machine" that I haven't heard about yet, no present medical equipment is prognostic without analysis.

A nurse knows this. A nurse also knows that doctors are, surprisingly frequently, wrong.

However, this type of miracle is different from that we are discussing , we are talking about mircles that prophets had.. miracles that Moses did and Jesus too.. Miracles that as BienvenuJDC were to proof something , to prove the power God and that he existed.

They are exactly the same - divine miracles.

If there were medical miracles of supernatural origin, that would be every bit as big as uncovering Noah's Ark, complete with a pair of fossilised unicorns.

Huh? There's plenty of evidence for the supernatural -- it's just not "hard"
enough to suit you. Evidence includes: eye witness accounts, written records, etc. etc. Of course if we demand "scientific" evidence for the supernatural, we won't find it. That's because "science" is specifically designed to examine the natural world.

This is nonsense.

If you had the slightest experience with eyewitness accounts, you'd realise that personal anecdotes are extremely unreliable.

Secondly, a huge amount of historical and eyewitness accounts make claims that would be verifiable by scientific enquiry.

A dead person, killed by multiple trauma, resurrecting. That'd work.

As soon as a claim is made that a supernatural force can interact with the physical world, it must, by nature, be measurable.

I suspect that Christians could very easily have problems with near-death experiences.

Why?

Because people who are not Christians, not even religious, have positive near-death experiences. If Jesus is the only way, how is that possible? It also looks like no one needs to wait for a final judgment to occur. So how does that sync up with the book of Revelation?

The ones who don't have an NDE are headed for purgatory.

Let's not forget that "near death experiences" have also been experienced by pilots undergoing G-force tests. They are know where near death yet they have reported the same type of experiences.

[Cunninglinguist]

Actually, we did have evidence that it was round - we just failed to interpret it correctly.

Yes & no. It depends on what period of time and which civilization you’re looking at. A hunter-gatherer society of cavemen did not have this evidence. From the unaided (I will live this term ambiguous) perspective of the individual the world certainly feels flat.

Huh? There's plenty of evidence for the supernatural -- it's just not "hard"
enough to suit you. Evidence includes: eye witness accounts, written records, etc. etc. Of course if we demand "scientific" evidence for the supernatural, we won't find it. That's because "science" is specifically designed to examine the natural world.

What's strange (to me) is to deny that there is any evidence. If we were in a court of law, on what grounds would we deny that Doubting Thomas's personal testimony of feeling the holes in Jesus' hands constitutes "evidence". I'll grant that we need not find the evidence persuasive -- but surely it constitutes evidence, and would not be excluded by any reasonable judge.

Following the first point, “soft” evidence does not mean all that much in science, and can be demonstrably and tenaciously erroneous. There was tons of soft evidence that led people to believe the earth was flat, and even when there was evidence that it wasn't it led people to misinterpret the data, as Mark tells us.
The point you make highly depends on the parameters by which you define evidence. In science the accounts of the bible certainly do not count as evidence – In a court of law they might, though the court analogy is not very strong. To start, forensic evidence always means more than anecdotal evidence, unless the court is biased. And for the sake of practicality, anecdotal evidence is merely used to fill in the gaps as best as possible left by the forensic evidence (once again, unless the court is biased).





As for NDE experiences I bid a similar point; NDEs can probably be explained by neuroscience, people need to learn to differentiate between the subjective and the objective. If I take LSD and see a unicorn, and if a great number of other people do it too, that does not necessarily mean unicorns exist in objective reality.

I'd really appreciate it if you'd actually read my posts before replying to them and telling me I was wrong, before paraphrasing what I said.

Your comment doesn't relate to what I said at all, and in fact is a mere re-phrasing of my position.

On the contrary, I said "you're not making this error." I was restating your position, because I think its clarity is important.

[Ecurb]

This is nonsense.

If you had the slightest experience with eyewitness accounts, you'd realise that personal anecdotes are extremely unreliable.

Secondly, a huge amount of historical and eyewitness accounts make claims that would be verifiable by scientific enquiry…..

As soon as a claim is made that a supernatural force can interact with the physical world, it must, by nature, be measurable.

It’s not “nonsense”. Obviously, I DO have “the slightest experience with eyewitness accounts” – in fact, I saw a car drive by on the street just now. I tend to believe my own eyes, although I recognize that I might be deluded, and I tend to believe other people, unless there is some reason to suspect them of being wrong. However, I recognize that they may be wrong – just as scientists may be wrong (as history has proved over and over again). I further recognize that highly unusual eyewitness accounts are less credible than usual ones. There is no reason for you to doubt that I saw a car drive by, but if I said I saw a dragon fly by you might question either my veracity or my sanity.

What do we mean by “supernatural”. I don’t know. I assume we mean, “Something that occurs through some agency beyond the known forces of nature.” So the atomic bomb would be “supernatural” to people who know nothing of subatomic physics.

Following the first point, “soft” evidence does not mean all that much in science, and can be demonstrably and tenaciously erroneous. There was tons of soft evidence that led people to believe the earth was flat, and even when there was evidence that it wasn't it led people to misinterpret the data, as Mark tells us.
The point you make highly depends on the parameters by which you define evidence. In science the accounts of the bible certainly do not count as evidence – In a court of law they might, though the court analogy is not very strong. To start, forensic evidence always means more than anecdotal evidence, unless the court is biased. And for the sake of practicality, anecdotal evidence is merely used to fill in the gaps as best as possible left by the forensic evidence (once again, unless the court is biased).

Both forensic evidence and anecdotal evidence constitute forms of “evidence”, however. We must decide for ourselves which evidence we find persuasive. Forensic evidence can never tell the whole story – although our society’s bias in favor of science sometimes suggests that it does. For example, I’ve read newspaper stories claiming that death row inmates have been “exonerated” by DNA evidence. How is that possible? Suppose there was a rape and murder, and it turns out that the semen in the victim’s body does not match the DNA of the convicted murderer. Does that prove the convicted murderer is innocent of the crime? Of course it doesn’t (although it may cast "reasonable doubt" on the conviction). There are any number of explanations for the forensic evidence that are consistent with the guilt of the convicted murderer. Suppose, for example, you were a rape victim. You know who raped you – you knew him before the crime. If the DNA found in the semen did not match the person you I.D.ed as a rapist (which could happen if, for example, you had had sex with someone else recently), would you change your mind about who had raped you? Wouldn't believing the "forensic evidence" instead of (your own) eye witness accoung be consistent with your stated opinion?

All evidence is subject to interpretation -- scientific evidence and historical evidence (eye witness accounts) alike.

[Ecurb]

One more note about scientific evidence. One seminal work (although now somewhat dated) on how science works is Karl Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", published in 1934. Popper rejected standard empiricism. Science, by its very nature, moved beyond empiricism (indeed, empiricism is more akin to history or “eye witness accounts”, as we are using the words in this discussion). Science generalized on observation. However, this led to a problem – called the problem of induction. If you see 5 swans, and they are all white, you might theorize, “All swans are white.”

This is an example of moving from observations to scientific generalizations or laws. However, logicians recognize that the reasoning behind such generalizations is invalid. This is called “the problem of induction”. No matter how many white swans the scientist observes, the next swan he sees MIGHT be black.

Popper theorized that science advances through “falsification”. Although it is correct that inference from induction is invalid, the possibility of falsification lends credence to scientific generalizations. To the extent that many and reasonable attempts to “falsify” the theory (or generalization) fail to do so, the theory gains credibility.

Although modern philosophers of science recognize that this is only one of the many ways in which science moves forward, it remains an essential lynchpin of the scientific method.

Here’s the problem: If “rationalist atheists” refuse to accept any evidence for “miracles”, doesn’t that contradict this important scientific methodology? If the “scientific law” is considered more basic than the facts from which it is derived, how can ANY scientific law be falsified? So to say, “Jesus did not rise from the dead because it is impossible to rise from the dead,” is to deny the very foundations of scientific method.

I don’t want to overemphasize this: as I said earlier, it’s reasonable to be dubious about seemingly extraordinary claims – and I’m an atheist myself. However, we should be careful not to put the cart before the horse, or to make the scientific theories more fundamental than the observed facts.

[hoope]

I have to say that I find your language and claims of being a nurse are somewhat at odds. I cannot think of case where a monitor would show that a patient will not survive. Unless some smart company has invented a new "life prediction machine" that I haven't heard about yet, no present medical equipment is prognostic without analysis.

A nurse knows this. A nurse also knows that doctors are, surprisingly frequently, wrong.

Sorry for using it that term .. i was to know that u r not aware of it.... Monitor usually would us show the low Blood pressure.. low Heart rate.. low oxygen level in the body .. and etc.. many other vital signs that soemtimes indicate to the docotr that such patient just can't make it.. And yes Doctors soemtimes r wrong.. but never always wrong.. and you can't say Doctors as in plural.. and i don't claim anything by saying am a nurse.!!!!

And about Kerry Packer.. i really don't know all the medical details about how he was.. but as far as i recall reading it .. that they said he had also kidney problems and got kidney transplant.. And he had many heart attacks.. so i guess he had many health problems which could have contributed to his death. !
Medical reasons.. !!!!

They are exactly the same - divine miracles.

If there were medical miracles of supernatural origin, that would be every bit as big as uncovering Noah's Ark, complete with a pair of fossilised unicorns.

No they are not.. those were only at that time by Prophets .. noq there is no porphets.. and hence if they happen it would only be in certain occasion..

I know that medical miracles are really different.. they r usually happeneing suddenly.. and sometimes by doctors interference or meds.. or even without any introductions..
Some people see NDE as not a miracle or anything .. and they just think that there is a reason behind Go bringing them back . Which makes more sense !

But i still stick to my point that big miracles that happened before were totally different and they don't exist anymore.

[The Atheist]

Sorry for using it that term .. i was to know that u r not aware of it....

No, I'm aware of standard medical equipment; I was highlighting your error, which you now confirm that you mean simple monitors.

Monitor usually would us show the low Blood pressure.. low Heart rate.. low oxygen level in the body .. and etc.. many other vital signs that soemtimes indicate to the docotr that such patient just can't make it..

This is still wrong. Monitors do not explain what is wrong and alone, absolutely do not predict a prognosis.

This is why I seriously doubt your claim that you are a nurse.

A patient brought in with hypothermia will have terrible readings off the monitors, but a little hard work can often save a life.

I repeat, claims of people living who were expected to die are very, very rare.

And about Kerry Packer.. i really don't know all the medical details about how he was.. but as far as i recall reading it .. that they said he had also kidney problems and got kidney transplant.. And he had many heart attacks.. so i guess he had many health problems which could have contributed to his death. !
Medical reasons.. !!!!

I'm not talking about what killed him, but the occasion where he had a heart attack and "died" at a polo game, only to be resuscuitated.

But i still stick to my point that big miracles that happened before were totally different and they don't exist anymore.

Well, since there's no physical evidence to support any of these alleged miracles, I won't bother arguing about it, beyond noting that the christian god's miracles seem to have been exhausted when he was called upon to protect the Hebrews from the iron chariots.

[togre]

I would like to comment on a number of points raised in this discussion by different people.


--It is easy to say there is no evidence when one rejects all recorded accounts of an event as flawed, inaccurate, delusional or made-up. If I rejected every eyewitness, every journal article, every instrument reading, I could accurately claim there to be no evidence of gravity. I would be wrong.

--Regarding the purpose of miracles--they were never intended to convince people that God exists. God intended his word, spoken through his servants the prophet, recorded by them in the Bible, to be what convinced people of who he was and what he promised. Think of Moses, the miracles were his ID badge that he wasn't some loon making grand claims to Pharaoh. In Luke chapter 16, Jesus tells a parable that captures the false notion that if there were just more miracles everyone would believe.

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’


Regarding present day miracles and especially "near death experiences" you'll probably hear alot of different things from different individuals. From my personal study, the Bible neither promises that there will be any miracles in these days, nor does it clear say there will not be. So what does a Christians do? Christians know that there are spiritual forces, both good (God) and evil (the devil). We know there is a physical world that operates under certain principles. We know humans can be mistaken or confused. So we factor these together. We examine whether the possible miracle is in accordance with what we know is true (the Bible). If it is, maybe its a miracle or maybe not. It is not in agreement with what is found in the Bible(a non-Christians has a near death experience that convinces them they'll be in heaven), we know its not a miracle from God. Maybe its a false work of the devil to delude people. Maybe its self delusion. Maybe its the brain trying make sense of random neurons firing. I personally am skeptical of many specific accounts of miraculous happenings, but recognize I often don't have all the information. But again notice, miracles are never why we believe.

[togre]

Well, since there's no physical evidence to support any of these alleged miracles, I won't bother arguing about it, beyond noting that the christian god's miracles seem to have been exhausted when he was called upon to protect the Hebrews from the iron chariots.

Ok, one quick specific response. You make a number of assumptions. Why should there be "physical" evidence of these events? An arbitrary demand. Archeologists denied that King David existed. After all, the only place you hear about him is in the Bible and we all know how reliable that is, har, har. Until a period column was unearthed with an inscription mentioning David, King of Israel. There are other examples of blanket denials being disproved (there is even evidence that is consistent with the Bible's account of Jericho, but incredible bias on the part of believing and unbelieving scholars both has really muddy that part of archeology). Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


Secondly, God is not a vending machine. He doesn't perform miracles to fit our demands. Indeed, the Bible indicates that God often assisted and used Israel's enemies, aiding them to oppress his people when it was necessary to teach them of their errors. It would be extremely arrogant to demand miracle x,y or z to accomplish objective a, b, or c, unless God has made known that this is his plan.

[The Atheist]

If I rejected every eyewitness, every journal article, every instrument reading, I could accurately claim there to be no evidence of gravity. I would be wrong.

This is possibly the worst analogy I've ever seen.

You can sit at your PC and drop a pen. It will fall to the ground - there is physical evidence of gravity everywhere, all the time.

That is the exact opposite of any god, so the analogy fails utterly.

But again notice, miracles are never why we believe.

In your case, that's fine, but there certainly are people who believe precisely because they feel a miracle has taken place in themselves or their family.

I doubt it's a major reason for belief, but you cannot say people like that do not exist.

Ok, one quick specific response. You make a number of assumptions. Why should there be "physical" evidence of these events?

I didn't say there should be, I made the point that if a miracle occurs which affects the physical world, then there must, by its very definition, leave physical evidence.

I'm quite comfortable that people believe in only metaphysical miracles, but once they start claiming physical miracles on earth, there has to be physical evidence.

An arbitrary demand. Archeologists denied that King David existed. After all, the only place you hear about him is in the Bible and we all know how reliable that is, har, har. Until a period column was unearthed with an inscription mentioning David, King of Israel. There are other examples of blanket denials being disproved (there is even evidence that is consistent with the Bible's account of Jericho, but incredible bias on the part of believing and unbelieving scholars both has really muddy that part of archeology).

There is no evidence at all that Jericho's downfall was consistent with the bible - in fact the very opposite is true; the fall of Jericho neither happened as described in the bible, nor when it was said to have happened.

Whether or not David existed is irrelevant. I'm quite happy to admit that some bloke called Yeshua from Nazareth probably existed in ~30 BC, but it doesn't make him god.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yes, I do know that. Is it at all relevant? I have no evidence that a teapot isn't orbiting Venus either.

Secondly, God is not a vending machine. He doesn't perform miracles to fit our demands. Indeed, the Bible indicates that God often assisted and used Israel's enemies, aiding them to oppress his people when it was necessary to teach them of their errors. It would be extremely arrogant to demand miracle x,y or z to accomplish objective a, b, or c, unless God has made known that this is his plan.

I have no problem with that theology at all. Trouble is, many of your fellow theists make extraordinary claims that a god is performing miracles every single day.

We heathen unbelievers find it difficult to separate those accounts from yours.