Religious Miracles

I don't think that scientific models (given the current state of science) can "predict everything that happens in Vegas with 100% accuracy." I'll grant that once the dice have been tossed, perfect knowledge of the angle, force, and orientation of the dice would probably allow us to predict how they will land. Where scientists have been less successful is in understanding the human mind. When will the crap shooter throw the dice? How hard will he throw them? At what angle will he throw them? Once the dice are in the air, no bets are allowed (I think, I don't play craps).

I don't doubt that some day our understanding of the mind will improve, and we may be able to predict these things more accurately. But will we be able to predict them ten years before the crap shooter even goes to Vegas? Two years? A day?

It is reasonable to say, "If our science were improved, and we understood how neurons firing in the brain work more completely, we could predict all human choices scientifically." But my original point was that although this is a reasonable position, it is also a leap of faith. Since science cannot help us predict these things today, we cannot be certain that we will be able predict them in the future.

I think I see the problem here... The Atheist was talking about the abilities of our models and what they tell us about reality being predictable; while you're talking about our failures in engineering those models to help us do things like predict the outcome of Vegas games. These are two very different things. I have no doubt that given the complete data that General Relativity could deterministically predict the outcome of a dice roll, but just because we can't figure out how to build a machine that can calculate all of the necessary data in the time-frame of a roll is not a knock against our models or what they have to say about reality being deterministic and predictable. It's the latter that The Atheist seemed to be addressing in his response to Alexander, who was exaggerating in minimizing how much we can "know" about reality.

I think calling odds a "useful illusion" has false ring to it, though I understand what you mean. I prefer Yudkowsky's "probability is in the mind, not in reality," which more distinctly explains that odds are the result of our combined ignorance and knowledge of a situational outcome. That level of knowledge and ignorance isn't really an illusion as much as it is as a factual statement about our mind. The only "illusion" would be to think that the probabilities are an inherent part of reality.

While we're "picking nits," as you said, I want to address this point on the issue of falsifiability:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

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.

---

This reminds me of Yudkowsky's The Parable of Hemlock. A generalized induction would be falsified if we ever observed the opposite, so "dead people don't rise again" is falsifiable. However, saying "Jesus did not rise from the dead because it is impossible to rise from the dead" is, essentially, saying that the consistency of our modern observations are not/should not be considered falsified by the mere existence of a falsifying account, especially since we know it is not only possible but prevalent in texts to give "accounts" of things that didn't actually happen. Given the absolute consistency of our observations, the burden of proof would be on those claiming it did happen, and I honestly don't think there IS any evidence good enough to support an account of such an event over our own observations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

While we're "picking nits," as you said, I want to address this point on the issue of falsifiability: This reminds me of Yudkowsky's The Parable of Hemlock. A generalized induction would be falsified if we ever observed the opposite, so "dead people don't rise again" is falsifiable. However, saying "Jesus did not rise from the dead because it is impossible to rise from the dead" is, essentially, saying that the consistency of our modern observations are not/should not be considered falsified by the mere existence of a falsifying account, especially since we know it is not only possible but prevalent in texts to give "accounts" of things that didn't actually happen. Given the absolute consistency of our observations, the burden of proof would be on those claiming it did happen, and I honestly don't think there IS any evidence good enough to support an account of such an event over our own observations.

---

Obviously, the “evidence” for someone rising from the dead is the first person accounts. We read them in the Gospels, which were written decades after the fact. So we read the Gospels and ask ourselves, “What is the most plausible explanation for this evidence (the written, first person accounts)?” One explanation is that Jesus actually did rise from the dead. However, that contradicts our observation that people rarely, if ever, rise from the dead. So we ask ourselves, “Since this story is accepted by a great many people as true, are there plausible explanations for both the story and its widespread acceptance OTHER than Jesus rising from the dead?”


In the case of the dying and rising Gods, there are a great many competing explanations, including, but not limited to: common literary motifs in Middle Eastern mythology; psychological desires on the part of mortal humans, etc., etc.
So most agnostics and atheists think, “I don’t believe that the most plausible explanation for the evidence (i.e. the written eye witness testimonies) is that Jesus rose from the dead. I think there are other theories that are equally consistent with the evidence and are more plausible.”

Obviously, if the evidence was sturdier, we might have to re-evaluate. My friend who claims to have seen a Sasquatch doesn’t persuade me; it seems implausible that IF sasquatches were roaming the Pacific NW we wouldn’t have discovered sturdier evidence. But I’m not emotionally invested in the non-existence of Sasquatches. If compelling evidence arises, I’m glad to accept Sasquatches existence. It’s just that the evidence would have to be sufficiently compelling to overcome my grave doubts, based on the LACK of more compelling evidence, and the fact that there are competing theories consistent with the evidence of his eyewitness account (that he saw something else, and thought it was a sasquatch because he is obsessed with sasquatches).

One can also look at it from a Bayesian perspective and say that "given that Jesus rose from the dead, what is the probability it would've been written down?" and "given that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, what is the probability it would've been written down?" As for the former, I think it's fair to say that the former probability is close to 100% (hard to imagine someone rising from the dead and nobody writing about it!). As for the latter, I think we have to look at things like mythology and even fiction and say that it is very common to depict messianic figures as rising from the dead... but let's be conservative and put the estimate at 40%. If you put the prior probability of someone rising from the dead at a CONSERVATIVE 1%, then it would still be almost 40:1 against the accounts being true. The case gets worse, though, the more factors you take into account, as Carrier's Proving History convincingly argues. The problem is that I think people massively over-estimate how much a mere account should influence the consistency of our own experiences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Obviously, the “evidence” for someone rising from the dead is the first person accounts. We read them in the Gospels, which were written decades after the fact. So we read the Gospels and ask ourselves, “What is the most plausible explanation for this evidence (the written, first person accounts)?” One explanation is that Jesus actually did rise from the dead. However, that contradicts our observation that people rarely, if ever, rise from the dead. So we ask ourselves, “Since this story is accepted by a great many people as true, are there plausible explanations for both the story and its widespread acceptance OTHER than Jesus rising from the dead?”

---

People who report near-death experiences could reasonably be portrayed as having risen from the dead. I don't think such resurrection stories should surprise anyone today.

Although I'm not that familiar with the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, I do recall some years ago reading the post crucifixion events to see if these accounts could be interpreted as shared-death experiences. As I recall, I came to the conclusion that they all could be interpreted in that manner, although I might have missed some. That means they all could have happened.

For me, the most amazing parts of these accounts is not a physical resurrection but the massive amounts of shared death experiences that occurred after Jesus' crucifixion. That is what makes them stand out and that would be enough to justify a believer's faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

People who report near-death experiences could reasonably be portrayed as having risen from the dead.

---

Near-Death has that hyphenated qualifier before "death" for a reason. In no NDE was the deceased dead for three days.

Besides, YesNo is simply offering one more alternative explanation for the stories that may be more credible than the official Christian explanation. Many alternatives exist -- although we should recognize that which of these we are willing to accept is influenced by our preconceptions and prejudices.

A "miracle" is something than cannot be explained by our understanding of how the physical world "works." Of course that depends on how much we "know" about the physical world. I think it was Isaac Asimov who proposed that folks with a rather rudimentary "science" would be inclined to view more advanced technology as somehow "magical" or "miraculous," just because they would not be able to understand it as "natural."

The Bible describes things we consider "miraculous," such as Moses parting the Red Sea, the Sun and Moon stopping their movements in the sky, Lazarus being raised from the dead, Christ's resurrection, the feeding of multitudes with a few fishes and loaves, etc.

Folks have attempted to explain these and other biblical miracles by plausible ideas...such as earthquakes (the Red Sea) or simple mistakes (Lazarus wasn't really dead).

Then there is the question of improbability. If something is improbable enough, but still possible, is it a miracle? For example, there is nothing thermodynamically impossible about a glass of water at room temperature suddenly turning into ice or boiling away, though that would be very unlikely to spontaneously occur.

As Nick Capozzoli mentions, a miracle is what cannot be explained by our understanding of how the universe works. It is an unusual event. The fact that we are here at all could be viewed as miraculous although we are used to by now.

A religious person would view a miracle as something to justify a specific belief. Others with different belief systems might try to discredit the event. I think a middle ground would be to consider any event that occurs as natural, no matter how unusual it might be.

Some of the events in religious texts are likely stories. I would put the J portion of Genesis in that category along with the stories in the Srimad Bhagavatam. That they actually occurred is not important. Other unusual events, such as the stories surrounding Jesus or Krishna may have actually happened. One would only have to have seen similar events happen elsewhere in some form to grant them credibility.

The only events that puzzle me are physical transformations or manifestations such as turning water into wine or feeding the multitude. However, I think it is best to not jump to a conclusion that something could not happen that someone said occurred or to even jump to an explanation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

As Nick Capozzoli mentions, a miracle is what cannot be explained by our understanding of how the universe works.

---

To call what we cannot currently explain a "miracle" (though I suspect we can explain the vast majority of so-called miracles, and the people that so-call them such simply don't like the answers. like Keats' rainbow.), is to do nothing but worship your own ignorance. Again, Yudkowsky has the definitive explanation to this with a perfect example:

Quote:

---

Imagine looking at your hand, and knowing nothing of cells, nothing of biochemistry, nothing of DNA. You've learned some anatomy from dissection, so you know your hand contains muscles; but you don't know why muscles move instead of lying there like clay. Your hand is just... stuff... and for some reason it moves under your direction. Is this not magic?

...

(Lord Kelvin's explanation) was the theory of vitalism; that the mysterious difference between living matter and non-living matter was explained by an elan vital or vis vitalis. Elan vital infused living matter and caused it to move as consciously directed. Elan vital participated in chemical transformations which no mere non-living particles could undergo—Wöhler's later synthesis of urea, a component of urine, was a major blow to the vitalistic theory because it showed that mere chemistry could duplicate a product of biology.

Calling "elan vital" an explanation, even a fake explanation like phlogiston, is probably giving it too much credit. It functioned primarily as a curiosity-stopper. You said "Why?" and the answer was "Elan vital!"

...

But the greater lesson lies in the vitalists' reverence for the elan vital, their eagerness to pronounce it a mystery beyond all science. Meeting the great dragon Unknown, the vitalists did not draw their swords to do battle, but bowed their necks in submission. They took pride in their ignorance, made biology into a sacred mystery, and thereby became loath to relinquish their ignorance when evidence came knocking.

...

But ignorance exists in the map, not in the territory. If I am ignorant about a phenomenon, that is a fact about my own state of mind, not a fact about the phenomenon itself. A phenomenon can seem mysterious to some particular person. There are no phenomena which are mysterious of themselves. To worship a phenomenon because it seems so wonderfully mysterious, is to worship your own ignorance.

---

Just replace "Elan vital" with "miracle!" and it's THE EXACT SAME THING.

Nick says, “A "miracle" is something than cannot be explained by our understanding of how the physical world "works." Of course that depends on how much we "know" about the physical world.”

This definition embraces certain prejudices. The religious person understands precisely how the Red Sea was parted – God decided to part it to save his Chosen People. In fact, his “understanding of how the physical world ‘works’” is that it works in accordance to God’s will. For such a person, a miracle is a "super-natural" occurence -- and God is "super natural" because although He can affect nature, He is outside of nature Himself. (I'll grant it's all very confusing, and I'm trying to figure it out myself.)

It is true (of course, as morpheus points out) that many things that seem wonderfully mysterious (even miraculous) eventually yield to naturalistic, scientific explanation. No doubt from the point of view of an (imaginary) super-powerful, omniscient God who can part the Red Sea, there's nothing mysterious about it. He probably knows how it is done (if, as is unlikely, He did it).

I don't mean by "natural" a scientific explanation. Natural is just the way things are whatever super human agents might exist. This removes the miraculous or makes everything a miracle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

Near-Death has that hyphenated qualifier before "death" for a reason. In no NDE was the deceased dead for three days.

---

P. M. H. Atwater in The Big Book of Near-Death Experiences tells the story of George Rodonaia. On page 165 is the following:

George's corpse was stored in a freezer vault in the hospital morgue for three days (he doesn't know what the exact temperature was). He revived while the trunk of his body was being split open during autopsy.

He also had an NDE and informed the staff about an infant in the hospital with a broken hip that he discovered while dead.

I take every NDE story with a grain of salt because they have a rich history of getting wildly distorted in the retelling, as this essay points out with a number of the most widely cited cases. What's more, Atwater, as far as I can tell, has zero scientific credentials and exclusively writes on NDEs from the perspective of a New Age believer, so not exactly the most reliable, unbiased source. After a quick Google search on George Rodonaia, it looks like the original story was "reported" by Pravda.ru, the same site that promotes that Global Warming, evolution, the moon landing, and HIV are hoaxes, so not exactly reliable either. It seems that George also knew about the boy beforehand. Any morgue freezer would be cold enough to significantly slow (if not suspend) the dying of cells (that's their entire purpose), so George was not dead when they put him in or pulled him out. Obviously, my statement was concerning ACTUALLY being dead for three days (not being NEAR dead and then stored at a temperature that would slow/suspend the dying of cells).

I think we can differ on whether George Rogonaia was actually dead or not. I think he was. This idea can be threatening to many belief systems, not just atheism.

There are enough cases of people rising from the dead (or supposed dead), to make credible the possibility that Jesus might have done something similar. However, what I find most surprising in those Christian texts are the quantities of shared-death experiences of the survivors. That is strong evidence in favor of Christianity.

More generally, the evidence from NDEs tell me it is reasonable to believe that consciousness is not generated by the brain. They provide another reason to throw out a mechanistic view of the universe.

I don't consider any NDE to be a "miracle", although I can see how some may view them in that manner. They are part of our reality. They also suggest that our reality is more unusual than what some of us believe it to be.