Interesting post; I'll be interested to see if any of the miracle testifiers respond. I do have one thought that I'm interested to see what you think. So, basically, Hume's thought is that natural laws are just events that have never been reliably reported to deviate. Now, for the sake of the thought, let's presume a group of witnesses did reliably report a deviation in the natural law (they all caught the event on separate cameras or something without collaboration). Wouldn't a reliable deviation from the natural law make it likely that something supernatural happened? After all, if what is natural is what has always happened, then would it not be the case that an observation consistent with the data would very likely be natural, whereas an observation that deviates from the data would very likely be something not natural?
In other words, it's not just the effect that has never deviated but also the cause, so if the effect is something that deviates, the cause is something that deviates, and because what is natural has always acted the same way, when something acts differently it suggests that the cause is different, and this is unlikely to be in a natural manner because all our evidence of natural causes act a certain way, so by virtue of the event having an unlikely effect its improbable that its cause would be natural since natural causes have never acted this way before.
I could not figure out how to say what I was trying to say, so I hope that makes sense.
As I said in the piece, we don't actually have a reliable account of supernatural causes. To the extent that people atest to seeing the supernatural, they're really attesting to observing something spectacular.
We observe novel spectacular events all the time throughout history, and they're natural in origin, especially after sufficient observation.
You can't say "well we know it's not natural" and then also, it's definitely supernatural. We don't know what supernatural looks like! This is the vagueness I describe, the "win by default without even trying" approach to supernaturalism.
Right, but I'm not trying to jump to supernatural per se. Instead, I'm trying to say that if we did have a reliable account of a spectacular event, it's unlikely that the cause is natural because natural causes do act in certain consistent ways, so it's unlikely that the cause of an event that deviates is natural. Hume's point is that a miracle, by virtue of being a miracle, is the most unlikely thing; I'm trying to say, similarly, since natural causes and effects have always acted a certain way, a deviation, by virtue of being a deviation, is unlikely to have a natural cause. In other words, if the cause was natural, we'd expect it to have effects consistent with the current natural laws. I guess part of my point is that we call things natural because they're normal, so a truly uncanny event is unlikely to have a natural cause because the cause will be abnormal.
I'm not trying to be annoying. I just don't know why you think that's wrong.
I understand what you're saying: say we can establish the spectacular event that Jesus rose from the dead. Should then conclude that it is likely that *God* caused Jesus to rise from the dead (as opposed to some unknown natural cause)? Is this what you're getting at?
I’m not saying God caused it, yet. I am saying if we had a reliable deviation, it is unlikely that the cause is natural, since natural causes result in the natural effects, which are not deviations.
I would question the inference from "we had a reliable deviation" to "it is unlikely that the cause is natural," unless "natural" simply means "our current understanding of natural laws." The cause may be consistent with our future understandings of natural laws.
"In my experience, miracle proponents almost always lack high quality evidence or tools of measurement, and are generally unconvincing when eliminating naturalistic explanations."
And it's not just religious miracles . . .alien visitations, cryptids, panpsychism etc. You see the proponents make shockingly similar logical errors/circular arguments. Really diving deep into Bigfoot in my early 20s was actually kind of the entryway into biblical criticism/skepticism of religious miracles and evolving from someone who had previously believed all of the NT miracles were true into what Arthur T would call a "very liberal loosey goosy Christian."
Another point is that the very concept of "supernatural" doesn't arise until medieval times and then not fully developed until the Enlightenment. For people in the 1st century, there was no dividing line between God/the divine working in the world and what was natural. If something happened "naturally" it was often retroactively interpreted to be caused by God for XYZ reason. So a "miracle" was less a breaking of natural barriers than a consequence of God simply acting in the world for a purpose. Thus why you see "miracles" as practically commonplace in literature of the time (both Christian and non) and a steep drop-off into modern times. Also why you'd see things we now know are mental conditions that were coined at the time as demon possession.
“In all, this means that a wise person is always justified in rejecting that a miracle happened when only presented with eye-witness testimony.”
I think you clarify this later, but you would not hold that it’s always justified in rejecting that a *spectacular* event happened (e.g., someone levitating unaided) when only presented with eye-witness testimony. Right?
To take a more concrete example relevant to Christianity, would you agree that testimony alone can establish that someone rose from the dead -- just not establish that God rose someone from the dead?
Interesting post; I'll be interested to see if any of the miracle testifiers respond. I do have one thought that I'm interested to see what you think. So, basically, Hume's thought is that natural laws are just events that have never been reliably reported to deviate. Now, for the sake of the thought, let's presume a group of witnesses did reliably report a deviation in the natural law (they all caught the event on separate cameras or something without collaboration). Wouldn't a reliable deviation from the natural law make it likely that something supernatural happened? After all, if what is natural is what has always happened, then would it not be the case that an observation consistent with the data would very likely be natural, whereas an observation that deviates from the data would very likely be something not natural?
In other words, it's not just the effect that has never deviated but also the cause, so if the effect is something that deviates, the cause is something that deviates, and because what is natural has always acted the same way, when something acts differently it suggests that the cause is different, and this is unlikely to be in a natural manner because all our evidence of natural causes act a certain way, so by virtue of the event having an unlikely effect its improbable that its cause would be natural since natural causes have never acted this way before.
I could not figure out how to say what I was trying to say, so I hope that makes sense.
As I said in the piece, we don't actually have a reliable account of supernatural causes. To the extent that people atest to seeing the supernatural, they're really attesting to observing something spectacular.
We observe novel spectacular events all the time throughout history, and they're natural in origin, especially after sufficient observation.
You can't say "well we know it's not natural" and then also, it's definitely supernatural. We don't know what supernatural looks like! This is the vagueness I describe, the "win by default without even trying" approach to supernaturalism.
Right, but I'm not trying to jump to supernatural per se. Instead, I'm trying to say that if we did have a reliable account of a spectacular event, it's unlikely that the cause is natural because natural causes do act in certain consistent ways, so it's unlikely that the cause of an event that deviates is natural. Hume's point is that a miracle, by virtue of being a miracle, is the most unlikely thing; I'm trying to say, similarly, since natural causes and effects have always acted a certain way, a deviation, by virtue of being a deviation, is unlikely to have a natural cause. In other words, if the cause was natural, we'd expect it to have effects consistent with the current natural laws. I guess part of my point is that we call things natural because they're normal, so a truly uncanny event is unlikely to have a natural cause because the cause will be abnormal.
I'm not trying to be annoying. I just don't know why you think that's wrong.
I understand what you're saying: say we can establish the spectacular event that Jesus rose from the dead. Should then conclude that it is likely that *God* caused Jesus to rise from the dead (as opposed to some unknown natural cause)? Is this what you're getting at?
I’m not saying God caused it, yet. I am saying if we had a reliable deviation, it is unlikely that the cause is natural, since natural causes result in the natural effects, which are not deviations.
I would question the inference from "we had a reliable deviation" to "it is unlikely that the cause is natural," unless "natural" simply means "our current understanding of natural laws." The cause may be consistent with our future understandings of natural laws.
Humans hallucinate far more than LLMs. We just call it "belief" or "faith."
"In my experience, miracle proponents almost always lack high quality evidence or tools of measurement, and are generally unconvincing when eliminating naturalistic explanations."
And it's not just religious miracles . . .alien visitations, cryptids, panpsychism etc. You see the proponents make shockingly similar logical errors/circular arguments. Really diving deep into Bigfoot in my early 20s was actually kind of the entryway into biblical criticism/skepticism of religious miracles and evolving from someone who had previously believed all of the NT miracles were true into what Arthur T would call a "very liberal loosey goosy Christian."
Another point is that the very concept of "supernatural" doesn't arise until medieval times and then not fully developed until the Enlightenment. For people in the 1st century, there was no dividing line between God/the divine working in the world and what was natural. If something happened "naturally" it was often retroactively interpreted to be caused by God for XYZ reason. So a "miracle" was less a breaking of natural barriers than a consequence of God simply acting in the world for a purpose. Thus why you see "miracles" as practically commonplace in literature of the time (both Christian and non) and a steep drop-off into modern times. Also why you'd see things we now know are mental conditions that were coined at the time as demon possession.
“In all, this means that a wise person is always justified in rejecting that a miracle happened when only presented with eye-witness testimony.”
I think you clarify this later, but you would not hold that it’s always justified in rejecting that a *spectacular* event happened (e.g., someone levitating unaided) when only presented with eye-witness testimony. Right?
Good post!
No, and I explain why!
To take a more concrete example relevant to Christianity, would you agree that testimony alone can establish that someone rose from the dead -- just not establish that God rose someone from the dead?