Religious Miracles

[Scheherazade]

Do religious miracles become less spectacular and more "believable" as we get closer to the present time?

From the days of parting the sea and building arks to carry many animals and survive a terrible storm, we get to catching large number of fish and healing people.

If you agree that religious miracles are getting smaller in scale in time, why do you think this might be? Is it because we do not need great miracles anymore? Or difficulty of proving? Or we are able to explain things better without resorting to supernatural?

What are your thoughts on religious miracles?

[YesNo]

I doubt that anything in Genesis actually happened. It is a story and the miracles there are quite tame compared to what is reported in the Shrimad Bhagavatam which tells of Vishnu and the other gods and sages and their incarnations.

As stories they are all quite interesting, however.

The miracles reported about Jesus may be fictional also. I don't know, but I suspect that many of them are.

What I do think is true regarding the miraculous is that the world is far more mysterious than we realize. I think it is good to take that perspective both from a scientific as well as a spiritual position, because it keeps the door unlocked on our mental cages.

[caddy_caddy]

Oh no, I don't believe in all these **** which they call religious miracles .
Miracles are restricted to prophets and their time , and that time has gone .

[lichtrausch]

What are your thoughts on religious miracles?

That there is no reason to believe that one has ever occurred. It's a question of probability. What's more likely: that the laws of nature were violated, or that someone got the story wrong or just made it up? Considering what we know about human psychology, I'd say the latter is far more probable.

[Haunted]

I read a book written by a physicist to explain using math how religious miracles could have happened. It's a fascinating read, especially coming from a physicist who knows more than anyone that science doesn't rule out the presence of a spiritual world.

[lichtrausch]

I read a book written by a physicist to explain using math how religious miracles could have happened. It's a fascinating read, especially coming from a physicist who knows more than anyone that science doesn't rule out the presence of a spiritual world.

You can find plenty of books by scientists trying to make religious people feel good about themselves by flirting with religious metaphors and ideas. It's easy money. 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". This is the same person whose ex-wife said that one of the reasons she divorced him was because of his atheism. The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that there is currently no good reason to believe that any sort of God or spiritual world exists. A survey published in the leading science journal Nature found that 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences (the top science academy in the U.S.) are either atheists or agnostics.

[Haunted]

A survey published in the leading science journal Nature found that 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences (the top science academy in the U.S.) are either atheists or agnostics.

So you are confirming that as much as 7% of the top science academy in the U.S. do believe in God or a spiritual world? That's remarkable. Thank you for the stats.

[lichtrausch]

So you are confirming that 7% of the top science academy in the U.S. do believe in God or a spiritual world? That's remarkable. Thank you for the stats.

Indeed, it is remarkable. It shows what a strong pull religious beliefs have on people.

[BienvenuJDC]

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.

[togre]

From the Biblical view point, miracles don't "just happen," they are God getting involved in his creation in a way he usually doesn't get involved. (Btw, numerous scientists, even in recent times, have understood the existence of order and "laws" in creation and nature as the result of the God of order being constantly involved in sustaining his creation.) The Bible often refers to miracles as "signs." They are as important for what they tell us as they are for what they accomplish, often. They are marks of authentication, God providing his prophets (and Jesus providing himself) with a bona fida. Knowing that according to the Bible we are living after Jesus' great act of salvation, we have no reason to expect miracles today (although the Bible does not forbid the possibility of miracles).

To the OP, I don't agree with the premise that miracles get progressively less impressive as history progresses. I think raising the dead and a virgin giving birth to a son are up there in the "wow" range of miracles.

As far as those who dispute the idea that miracles ever occur/ed, I commend the book Miracles by C.S. Lewis. It shows some of the weaknesses in assuming a priori that supernatural actions are impossible. Also, the idea that the ancients were rubes and fools, seeing miracles where a modern would see science is severely flawed. Mary knew where babies came from. Mary knew that no one, even Joseph who loved her dearly, would believe her if she said, "I'm still a virgin" once her belly started to grow. Miracles were impossible things back then too.

[YesNo]

As far as those who dispute the idea that miracles ever occur/ed, I commend the book Miracles by C.S. Lewis. It shows some of the weaknesses in assuming a priori that supernatural actions are impossible.

I think you make a good point here about rejecting evidence a priori. Too many people, whether Christian, atheist, or non-Christian, think in mental cages with all the doors and windows to the outside bolted shut.

I consider the people who have had "near-death" experiences to have experienced a "miracle" in the sense that they were "sent back" temporarily. They were not just resuscitated. So they died and, with or without some medical attention, resurrected. (I'm using the word "resurrection" to bait you, hopefully in a kind way, so beware.)

A question I have is how does Christianity deal with near-death experiences?

I suspect Christianity would reject these as miracles. I also suspect many atheists would reject these as miracles. My guess is that on this level the Christians and atheists at least have a point of agreement, but I may be wrong.

[The Atheist]

Do religious miracles become less spectacular and more "believable" as we get closer to the present time?

The standards of evidence of and the actual miracles claimed for both Mary McKillop and Mother Theresa would tend to indicate that's the case.

That there is no reason to believe that one has ever occurred. It's a question of probability. What's more likely: that the laws of nature were violated, or that someone got the story wrong or just made it up? Considering what we know about human psychology, I'd say the latter is far more probable.

Bingo!

Claims: several million. Evidence: nil.

To the OP, I don't agree with the premise that miracles get progressively less impressive as history progresses. I think raising the dead and a virgin giving birth to a son are up there in the "wow" range of miracles.

That is a lot of history ago, which is what the thread asks - why are there none today?

I like the question myself. If the god-figure was so determined to make people accept him on faith alone, why were the people of ~20 AD different? What made him/it think that mere unsupported rumour would suffice as evidence of his existence some 20 centuries later? Why were people in Jesus' age so special that they were even granted the favour to feel the wound on his dead body?

If a pal of Jesus was allowed physical evidence that his buddy had been resurrected, why are 7 billion people excluded from being given just one piece of hard evidence?

As far as those who dispute the idea that miracles ever occur/ed, I commend the book Miracles by C.S. Lewis.

Yes, good old Mr Apologetics himself, C S Lewis.

When arguing the impossible, always build a good strawman first - Lewis really ought to have written the Wizard of Oz.

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.

I consider the people who have had "near-death" experiences to have experienced a "miracle" in the sense that they were "sent back" temporarily. They were not just resuscitated. So they died and, with or without some medical attention, resurrected.

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?

A question I have is how does Christianity deal with near-death experiences?

I suspect Christianity would reject these as miracles. I also suspect many atheists would reject these as miracles. My guess is that on this level the Christians and atheists at least have a point of agreement, but I may be wrong.

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!

Wanted:

Volunteers for medical study.

You will be anaesthetised, then killed, so that you may be resuscitated to check for NDEs.

Depends what the pay is, I guess.

[Cunninglinguist]

As far as those who dispute the idea that miracles ever occur/ed, I commend the book Miracles by C.S. Lewis. It shows some of the weaknesses in assuming a priori that supernatural actions are impossible. Also, the idea that the ancients were rubes and fools, seeing miracles where a modern would see science is severely flawed. Mary knew where babies came from. Mary knew that no one, even Joseph who loved her dearly, would believe her if she said, "I'm still a virgin" once her belly started to grow. Miracles were impossible things back then too.

The point C. S. Lewis makes is, in essence, the same one that Hume et al have made, which is the problem of induction. i.e. that you cannot deductively prove miracles ever happened, nor can you disprove them. On the one hand, when people understand this it grants that much more room for religious faith. On the other hand, giving faith more room can be less than favorable, leading to destructive moral practices among other things. For the sake of practicality, humankind’s well-being, and Occam’s razor we should probably denounce miracles, even if we cannot deductively justify doing so.

That is a lot of history ago, which is what the thread asks - why are there none today?

I like the question myself. If the god-figure was so determined to make people accept him on faith alone, why were the people of ~20 AD different? What made him/it think that mere unsupported rumour would suffice as evidence of his existence some 20 centuries later? Why were people in Jesus' age so special that they were even granted the favour to feel the wound on his dead body?

If a pal of Jesus was allowed physical evidence that his buddy had been resurrected, why are 7 billion people excluded from being given just one piece of hard evidence?

I imagine a lot of theists would say “because he’s testing our faith” or “How can we know God’s grand plan?” or something along those lines.

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

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.

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 don’t know how many theists use miracles as evidence of God, but I could believe it’s quite a few – though in my experience a good sum of the responses to questions concerning the existence of God and miracles start out with “that’s why it’s called faith” and end with “that’s why it’s called faith,” or, at least, they always end that way.

[MarkBastable]

was the world flat even when we had no evidence that it was round?

Actually, we did have evidence that it was round - we just failed to interpret it correctly. In Jumpers (I think that's the play I mean), Stoppard cites an exchange between Wittgenstein (I think that's the philosopher I mean) and a student he buttonholes in the quadrangle...

Wittgenstein: I've been thinking: why did people once believe that the sun went round the Earth?

Student: Er...I suppose because it looks as though the sun goes round the Earth.

Wittgenstein: Oh. In which case, what would it look like if the Earth went round the sun?

[OrphanPip]

Indeed, it is remarkable. It shows what a strong pull religious beliefs have on people.

The breakdown of the stats are interesting too, as older scientist are less likely to be religious than younger scientist. Psychologist and physicist are the least religious, while chemist are the most religious. Biologist are in the middle, but strikingly overwhelmingly deny creationism and Intelligent Design.

I would say very few religious scientist actually take religious doctrine literally.