Supernatural experiences with guest Jesse Cowell

[Matt]

My point is, even if I could find powerful enough evidence of one miracle to show that miracles are possible and send me back to square one in my understanding of physics, that would prove less than nothing. All it would do is open up several worlds of bewildering possibilities.

(If you'd grown up on Neil Gaiman, you'd think like this, too.)

What would consitute evidence of a miracle?

[Matt]

Gee, matt. I'm sorry, but special pleading just isn't convincing. "Oh, no, you don't understand how my magic works....it only works on Tuesdays when the moon is..."

I am sorry that you don't have a category for miracles. Since 90% of the world does, I don't see how it is "special" pleading.

OK.

LOGIC 101: Logical fallacies are arguments that when employed, are insufficient to prove your point or move the debate forward. They simply serve as distractions, attempts to muddy the waters, or circular reasoning. These include straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks, arguments from authority, appeals to popularity (see your statement above for a fine example of that one) and special pleading.

SPECIAL PLEADING occurs when you seek exemptions from rules that apply to EVERYONE ELSE, but for your own unique example, the rules don't apply. Here's an example: No human amputee has ever had a limb regrow, so to have one regrow would be a miracle. John is a Christian who is an amputee. He prays for a miracle to have his arm regrow. However, in 6 months he says that God told him that the greater miracle was his learning to live as an amputee, so God actually performed a miracle by not growing his limb back.

I understand what special pleading is. An accusation of special pleading does nothing to disprove the soundness of an argument, it just casts doubt on its relevance to those who reject the pleading that is supposedly "special." In that sense, perhaps this is "special pleading" according to the categories that you have defined. If you do not accept miracle as a legitimate category, then there is no way that this conversation can move forward.

However, I question what these supposed rules are that "EVERYONE ELSE" believes, and who defines these rules. Why is it you? Since 90% of the world does have a category for miracle, the demand for proof of god without the appeal to this category would seem like special pleading.

Here is an illustration of my point from John Meier, a religion professor at Notre Dame.
At the shrine in Lourdes, France, there is a medical team composed of Christians, atheists, and people of other faiths. It is called the International Medical Committee. Their task is to investigate supposed "miraculous" healings and determine what is going on. Here are some givens:

1. People come to Lourdes having had serious physical pathololgy.
2. The same people have been "cured" of said pathology apart from any known medical reason.
3. Sometimes these cures have been instantaneous, or at least very rapid.
4. These diseases have not come back.

If you ask a naturalist and a "supernaturalist" (for lack of a better term) to interpret this data, they would respond:

Naturalist: I don't know. We may not have a medical explanation, but there has to be one. It is not a miracle. I file this away under the category, "Things of the world about which we do not yet understand."

Supernaturalist: I don't know. There may be a medical explanation, it may be a miracle. I will file this away either under the category, "Things of the world about which we do not yet understand," or "miracle." I would need more information to decide.

The two people make their decisions not based on evidence or reason, but based on their categories for reality which they have constructed before they even approached the problem. (This illustration is from John Meier's book, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. 2.)

I am not suggesting that the cases in Lourdes definitely are miracles; I am suggesting that they could be. I am open to the possibility.

[Matt]

Matt,
I think NHB did a good job of defining “special pleading”. Basically, it’s just a way of fending off logical debate/argument without actually providing any real information. When you argue that miracles are not commonplace because if they were they wouldn’t prove much, you are engaging in special pleading. You are setting up a criteria of your own for miracles, that claims they work in a special way. In actuality, there is no consensus on what makes a miracle. I’m sure different religious sects have their criteria, but those criteria don’t necessarily agree and they often serve special purposed for that sect, furthering some assertion they make. So, it’s not so much that I don’t have a “category” for miracles. I am aware of the almost infinite criteria that do exist. While 90% of the human race may believe in miracles, you couldn’t possible get a consensus of them to agree.

See my response to NH Baritone. I missed his comment the first time I read through the thread. I am getting the atheist inquisition here and there a lot of people to whom I owe responses.

The point is that it isn’t logical or even rational to use a promised or prophesied claim as evidence

I think you misunderstand where I was going with this claim. I am not using a prophesy as "proof" in the sense that you are suggesting. I am merely pointing out that while we cannot know for sure that YHWH is god now, that this will not be the case forever.

Maybe we should step back and ask the question, "Why is Matt a Christian, practically speaking?" Even if there was undeniable proof that there is a god and that YHWH is this god, why should I care?

I care because it affects my future. Like it or not, I am going to die some day. Jesus says that he has a solution to this unfortunate predicament that I am in. So, his claims necessarily involve speculations about the future. He says He can raise me from the dead. Okay, sounds good. How do I know He can actually do this? Because he himself rose from the dead.

If Jesus does return and make himself known and demonstrate his power in a way that is convincing, then I’ll be right there with you. But until then, it behooves everyone to be skeptical of such claims.

I agree, but with perhaps a different definition of "skeptical." I remain "skeptical" in the sense that I keep an open mind and I admit that I don't have all the answers and I could be wrong. However, I think it is necessary to make decisions in life without complete evidence. Although I don't know for sure that YHWH is god, I think I have some good reasons for thinking that this is probable. I am comfortable following Jesus without absolute certainty. The opposite stance is self-defeating (see my T2 illustration in this thread).

But how do we weigh those claims? What evidence or instruments do we have to measure them?

That's the million dollar question, isn't it?

And for that matter, how do we know that only one can be right?

We don't. But mutually exclusive claims by definition can't both be right. Thus Islam and Hinduism can't both be right.

What objective evidence do we have that one god exists or that many gods exist? This strikes at the very heart of the atheist’s thinking process.

I would argue that there is not such thing as "objective evidence." Even scientific investigation is necessarily limited by the abilities and/or biases of the scientist. But just because we can't know "objectively" doesn't mean we can't know.

God may exist in some form, but we have no way of objectively determining this.

Again, we don't have an objective method for knowing anything. But that doesn't keep us from saying that we know things. We know in part, but we still know.

I can say, "I know I am talking to spongebob right now." But how do I know this? Perhaps this isn't really spongebob. Perhaps it's just someone with a clever screen name.

We have no physical evidence, no evidence of miracles or magic

I don't think it's fair to say we have "no evidence." We do have the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances. Perhaps this isn't "proof," but it is "evidence."

The only other form of “evidence” we have are claims of personal experiences or “feelings” about their relationship with god/Jesus/Mohammad…etc. These, too, are inadequate because of their subjectivity

Again, all evidence is necessarily subjective because it is filtered through subjective people.

It’s like a sea sponge trying to evaluate the best computer operating system

As JustJim points out with his clever tagline, "God is not a horse." But as I pointed out to him, the game changes if God becomes a man, as Christians claim he did.

I like that skeptical attitude, matt, but where’s the skepticism regarding supernaturalism and magic? Why do you consider that a given?

I just like to keep an open mind. I am not convinced that all claims of the miraculous are indeed miracles; I am just not willing to rule that out as an option.

Further, I am not sure that I would say that miracles are a "given." It is possible that you are right and that miracles don't happen. But when you discuss reality, how do you determine the rules of discussion? Who sets the rules? I am saying that enough people consider "miracle" to be a legitimate category that I don't think that the opposite position is necessarily default.

But why, matt? Why are you comfortable with YHWH’s word? Have you heard this word in your own ears or are you just working with the same biblical information the rest of us have?

I am comfortable with YHWH's word because of the resurrection.
I don't know that I have ever heard YHWH's word audibly. Sometimes I feel like He is "telling" me something. Maybe He is, maybe it's just my lunch settling. That's a decision I have to make. I do feel that I have had "supernatural" experiences and that these supernatural experiences are enough to convince me of Christianity's claims.

Again, your skepticism is good, but it seems arbitrarily halted at the question of a supernatural god. Why is that? Why are you so convinced that this, too, is not a figment of your imagination?

It could be. But it might not be. Looks like I have a decision to make and I don't have proof of either option. Sucks to be a skeptic!

[spongebob]

I understand what special pleading is. An accusation of special pleading does nothing to disprove the soundness of an argument, it just casts doubt on its relevance to those who reject the pleading that is supposedly "special."

I disagree. To me it does cast doubt on the argument because when a supernatural claim is made, the skeptic will test the claim against what he knows about the physical universe. When any logical or physical test of those claims comes up false, the believer often offers "special" reasons why their test failed. If you have heard anything about James Randi, you'll understand what I mean. Randi has offered a $1 Million prize for years to anyone who claims to possess any sort of supernatural powers or abilities; all they have to do is demonstrate it under controlled conditions. Of course, no one has claimed the prize, though many have submitted to testing. Why can't they demonstrate what they claim to be able to do? Is it because their powers mysteriously evade objective evaluation? That's special pleading.

In that sense, perhaps this is "special pleading" according to the categories that you have defined. If you do not accept miracle as a legitimate category, then there is no way that this conversation can move forward.

The problem is not a rejection of miracles as a "legitimate" cagetory; it's the lack of definition for what constitutes a "miracle". A miracle can't be an undefined thing, because if it is, there's no way to determine if and when a miracle has occurred. An example would be that if I said "Wan" has occurred in Baseball. A "Wan" is not a win, not a loss, not a tie, not a rainout, not a forfeit. What is it? If I don't know what it is, then how can I determine when it has occurred?

However, I question what these supposed rules are that "EVERYONE ELSE" believes, and who defines these rules. Why is it you? Since 90% of the world does have a category for miracle, the demand for proof of god without the appeal to this category would seem like special pleading.

I haven't defined any rules myself. I certainly have ideas about what should or shouldn't contitute magic. But the problem is that true believers themselves don't agree on what is a miracle. As I said, just because 99% of the world believes in miracles, if they all define it differently, you are no closer to making any progress. And your comment about demanding proof of god is irrelevant to this question. If I ask for evidence of god and no one can provide any, that is not speical pleading. You're confusing the meaning.

Here is an illustration of my point from John Meier, a religion professor at Notre Dame.
At the shrine in Lourdes, France, there is a medical team composed of Christians, atheists, and people of other faiths. It is called the International Medical Committee. Their task is to investigate supposed "miraculous" healings and determine what is going on. Here are some givens:

1. People come to Lourdes having had serious physical pathololgy.
2. The same people have been "cured" of said pathology apart from any known medical reason.
3. Sometimes these cures have been instantaneous, or at least very rapid.
4. These diseases have not come back.

If you ask a naturalist and a "supernaturalist" (for lack of a better term) to interpret this data, they would respond:

Naturalist: I don't know. We may not have a medical explanation, but there has to be one. It is not a miracle. I file this away under the category, "Things of the world about which we do not yet understand."

Supernaturalist: I don't know. There may be a medical explanation, it may be a miracle. I will file this away either under the category, "Things of the world about which we do not yet understand," or "miracle." I would need more information to decide.

The two people make their decisions not based on evidence or reason, but based on their categories for reality which they have constructed before they even approached the problem. (This illustration is from John Meier's book, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. 2.)

I am not suggesting that the cases in Lourdes definitely are miracles; I am suggesting that they could be. I am open to the possibility.

The critical problem with your analogy is that it is too presumptuous. No reasonable person makes that assumption a prior as you suggest. Any answer is most likely open. But given the preponderance of experience and evidence, is there any real reason for the naturalist to seriously consider a miracle has occurred? Meier jumps to the conclusion that a naturalist cannot consider a miracle as a possible reason for healing. This is, in fact, false. Given what we know of biology and medicine, the assertion of a miracle is vastly unlikely. Medical anomalies are almost always explained within the naturalist realm. What Meier seems to be saying is that, for some strange reason, miracles deserve an almost equal status with naturalist medical knowledge. Doesn't that seem a bit exaggerated? I mean, really, how many qualified miracles have you heard of lately? Of the tens of millions of illnesses that occur on a daily basis, how many of them get labled "miracle" by the family doctor?

Let's say that medical miracles really do happen, just for grins. How many and of what severity should we consider to be reasonable? Let's just rule out simple injuries, like cut fingers or bruises mysteriously healing instantaneously. Let's say only life threatening injuries or diseases. A man falls from a building and breaks his neck, but wakes up a few minutes later and walks away, thanking god. A woman is impaled by a car, severing her lower limbs, but when the car is pulled away the legs suddenly reattach. A child ingests poison and dies in the arms of his mother, but wakes up the next morning. A man dies on the operating table of heart failure, only to wake up hours later in the morgue. And why limit it to just humans? Humans value and rely on animals, so an animal miraculously surviving an injury is just as important. How many times has a seeing eye dog, crushed by a car, woke up an hour or day later? Oh, sure, we have the cases of tumors that suddenly stop growing and even shrink. And some chronic diseases have seen spontaneous healing. But an ALS patient suddenly regaining all muscular control? A life-long diabetic suddenly cured? Does Meier offer any examples such as these? Or does he insist that miracles have to be more subtle than that? Think about it, if this is the best that miracles can do, then we really are not much better than tossing chicken bones into the air and hoping for the best.

The real upshot of the two hypothetical people you described is this: the naturalist may very well argue that no miracle was witnessed and file away the event as "unknown", but that will not be the end of it. That data will be combined and organized with other data of its kind, and eventually there may be enough information to fully understand and replicate what actually happened. This is actually part of the medical method. Countless diseases have been "figured out" in this very way. But under the "supernaturalist" system, we have some guy just deciding arbitrarily that a miracle has occurred. At one time, people who tended to cows were immune to Small Pox. To the unskeptical eye, this might appear to be a miracle. But to the critical thinker, this was an opportunity to apply science to solve a human problem. If this were the only instance of such intellectual success, we could probably file it away as an anomaly, but it isn't.

BTW, so far we haven't even mentioned the exhaustive number of fake "faith" healers. With so much static from them, I don't see how anyone serious about miraculous healing expects anyone to take them seriously.

[spongebob]

I care because it affects my future. Like it or not, I am going to die some day. Jesus says that he has a solution to this unfortunate predicament that I am in. So, his claims necessarily involve speculations about the future. He says He can raise me from the dead. Okay, sounds good. How do I know He can actually do this? Because he himself rose from the dead.

Wow, big change in gears here. OK, I understand your comment here mainly because I was once there myself. And I can't honestly blame anyone who takes this position. If it makes you feel better about dying and absolves your fear, then I suppose it does you some benefit. But by doing this, you must realize that you are allowing fear to lead your decision making instead of critical thinking. Now, neither appraoch is absolutely without fault, but I believe that emotions are vastly more easy to manipulate, particularly if the manipulation begins in childhood.

I agree, but with perhaps a different definition of "skeptical." I remain "skeptical" in the sense that I keep an open mind and I admit that I don't have all the answers and I could be wrong. However, I think it is necessary to make decisions in life without complete evidence. Although I don't know for sure that YHWH is god, I think I have some good reasons for thinking that this is probable. I am comfortable following Jesus without absolute certainty. The opposite stance is self-defeating (see my T2 illustration in this thread).

I think this is a good place to be. But you must understand that along with that belief in Jesus comes many unspecified expectations about who will lead and direct your life. Not all of those forces are honest about their motivations. Christians are not asked to simply believe; they are inevitably called upon to act on those beliefs, often in ways that conflict with more logical, rational ways of life. That's where religion becomes a problem. If you can be flexible and make room for critical analysis and reality within your faith, then you will be fine. But so often, faith breeds inflexible, irrational thinking.

I would argue that there is not such thing as "objective evidence." Even scientific investigation is necessarily limited by the abilities and/or biases of the scientist. But just because we can't know "objectively" doesn't mean we can't know.

The scientific method is not subjectve, nor biased. The idea lives on past the scientist; any bias is and will be ferreted out. Objectivity is certainly possible because the facts are not bound to one person or ideology. The theory of relativity is not dependent upon your religion or your political party; it just is what it is.

Again, we don't have an objective method for knowing anything. But that doesn't keep us from saying that we know things. We know in part, but we still know.

This is simply untrue, objectivity is certainly possible and practiced. You may be thinking about absolute knowledge, which we do not have. That is not the same as objective knowledge. "Objective" just means that no personal bias or partiality is involved.

I can say, "I know I am talking to spongebob right now." But how do I know this? Perhaps this isn't really spongebob. Perhaps it's just someone with a clever screen name.

Because you aren't objective, you are subjective. If 10 or 20 really creative members all conversed with me, checked my IP address, cross referenced the personal information I've offered, it would be possible for them to determine my home address and call me up on the phone. If a few of them were hackers, they could do this in a matter of minutes. That's objective!

I don't think it's fair to say we have "no evidence." (of miracles or magic) We do have the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances. Perhaps this isn't "proof," but it is "evidence."

This is an ancient story with no verification. There are thousands of such stories, many of which are identical and pre-date the Jesus myth. There must be some kind of verified miracle in modern times, no? Anything? Was there something in the water 2,000 years ago? I watched Chris Angel walk on water on TV last night. Now that sounds pretty miraculous. Did he really walk on water? I have my own eye sight as evidence.

Again, all evidence is necessarily subjective because it is filtered through subjective people.

But the problem with such things is that they have no substance and they are completely subjective. What now qualifies as evidence? Virtially anything? Who's to say I'm wrong and you are right? This is the upshot of this kind of thinking.

It is possible that you are right and that miracles don't happen. But when you discuss reality, how do you determine the rules of discussion? Who sets the rules? I am saying that enough people consider "miracle" to be a legitimate category that I don't think that the opposite position is necessarily default.

Certainly a lot of people believe that John Edwards can really speak to the dead. Is that convincing to you?

I am comfortable with YHWH's word because of the resurrection.

Which exactly no one can verify really happend.

It could be. But it might not be. Looks like I have a decision to make and I don't have proof of either option. Sucks to be a skeptic!

Actually, no. I think the skeptic is in the best possible position. He knows for sure that he's not committed to false ideals. And even those ideals that he is committed to are under constant scrutiny, just in case. He's always learning and never loses interest in new information, which keeps him sharp and well informed. I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Matt]

the skeptic will test the claim against what he knows about the physical universe.

Or what he thinks he knows.

I am not denying at all that the claim that Jesus rose from the dead has no relevance to someone who rejects miracles. I am just questioning the reason for rejecting miracles a priori.

A miracle is an act (of god?) that runs contrary to the way things normally work.

Here is your reasoning:
Everything true can be duplicated in a laboratory
Miracles cannot be duplicated in a laboratory
Therefore, miracles are not true.

I am challenging premise 1 as an incorrect assumption. I am suggesting that perhaps there is a category called "miracles"--a subset of the category of "things that are true" that is not in the subset of the category "things that can be duplicated in a laboratory." You are replying that this can't be because "Everything true can be duplicated in a laboratory." This is just a restatement of your original premise, not an argument.

Randi has offered a $1 Million prize for years to anyone who claims to possess any sort of supernatural powers or abilities

.
Good for Randi. I suggest he do something better with his money.

all they have to do is demonstrate it under controlled conditions

Do you see the special pleading inherent in this request?

demonstrate it under controlled conditions
Now do you see it?

The problem is not a rejection of miracles as a "legitimate" category; it's the lack of definition for what constitutes a "miracle". A miracle can't be an undefined thing, because if it is, there's no way to determine if and when a miracle has occurred. An example would be that if I said "Wan" has occurred in Baseball. A "Wan" is not a win, not a loss, not a tie, not a rainout, not a forfeit. What is it? If I don't know what it is, then how can I determine when it has occurred?

Perhaps a miracle is like porn. I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. (Or, perhaps the above definition would suffice.)

I haven't defined any rules myself. I certainly have ideas about what should or shouldn't constitute magic. But the problem is that true believers themselves don't agree on what is a miracle. As I said, just because 99% of the world believes in miracles, if they all define it differently, you are no closer to making any progress. And your comment about demanding proof of god is irrelevant to this question. If I ask for evidence of god and no one can provide any, that is not special pleading. You're confusing the meaning.

I think this is a perfectly legitimate question to ask. You are approaching this discussion with the assumption that miracles are not a legitimate category, and you are putting the burden of proof on me to suggest otherwise. I am challenging your right to do this.

Further, it is not your demand of evidence that is special pleading, it is your demand of evidence of a certain kind--i.e. a kind that fits your construction of reality.

Meier jumps to the conclusion that a naturalist cannot consider a miracle as a possible reason for healing.

This is the definition of a naturalist--someone who believes that all reality can be described by natural (i.e. not miraculous or supernatural) phenomena.

Given what we know of biology and medicine, the assertion of a miracle is vastly unlikely

Ha! You're giving up ground. Yesterday you would have said that a miracle is impossible, not just unlikely.

miracles deserve an almost equal status with naturalist medical knowledge

I don't think he says this. He wouldn't say "equal," but "possible."

I mean, really, how many qualified miracles have you heard of lately? Of the tens of millions of illnesses that occur on a daily basis, how many of them get labeled "miracle" by the family doctor?

I don't disagree with you. Most miraculous claims are spurious. But that doesn't mean that some aren't.

Let's say that medical miracles really do happen, just for grins. How many and of what severity should we consider to be reasonable? Let's just rule out simple injuries, like cut fingers or bruises mysteriously healing instantaneously. Let's say only life threatening injuries or diseases. A man falls from a building and breaks his neck, but wakes up a few minutes later and walks away, thanking god. A woman is impaled by a car, severing her lower limbs, but when the car is pulled away the legs suddenly reattach. A child ingests poison and dies in the arms of his mother, but wakes up the next morning. A man dies on the operating table of heart failure, only to wake up hours later in the morgue. And why limit it to just humans? Humans value and rely on animals, so an animal miraculously surviving an injury is just as important. How many times has a seeing eye dog, crushed by a car, woke up an hour or day later? Oh, sure, we have the cases of tumors that suddenly stop growing and even shrink. And some chronic diseases have seen spontaneous healing. But an ALS patient suddenly regaining all muscular control? A life-long diabetic suddenly cured? Does Meier offer any examples such as these? Or does he insist that miracles have to be more subtle than that?

Again, this is special pleading. Why do miracles have to be of a specific kind that you see fit to be legitimate?

Further, just because I haven't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have never seen you.

I believe that I have experienced the supernatural, although admittedly not of the kind you are demanding. That doesn't bother me at all.

The real upshot of the two hypothetical people you described is this: the naturalist may very well argue that no miracle was witnessed and file away the event as "unknown", but that will not be the end of it. That data will be combined and organized with other data of its kind, and eventually there may be enough information to fully understand and replicate what actually happened. This is actually part of the medical method. Countless diseases have been "figured out" in this very way.

Agreed. This is typically how naturalists file away unexplained medical phenomena. I have no problem with this. I myself have a category for "unexplained phenomena that are not miraculous and about which we may some day know more." (Although, if an amputee's arm grew back it could conceivably be filed under this category.)

But under the "supernaturalist" system, we have some guy just deciding arbitrarily that a miracle has occurred.

I don't think it's fair to say "arbitrarily." There are a lot of kooks out there, many of whom call themselves Christian (Search YouTube for Todd Bentley for the latest). I have a category for the miraculous and I don't chase after them. Neither does Meier.

To the unskeptical eye, this might appear to be a miracle. But to the critical thinker, this was an opportunity to apply science to solve a human problem. If this were the only instance of such intellectual success, we could probably file it away as an anomaly, but it isn't

Which is why I remain a skeptic, albeit an open-minded skeptic.

BTW, so far we haven't even mentioned the exhaustive number of fake "faith" healers. With so much static from them, I don't see how anyone serious about miraculous healing expects anyone to take them seriously.

cf. Todd Bentley

[Mr. Sluagh]

Gar. Too much to go through it all. I'll just touch on a few points.

Why must only one of the gods be the "true" God?

Christianity claims that YHWH is the only true god. If Christianity is true, then the other religions are necessarily false. But Christianity could be false.

Yes. The idea that one theistic god must be the deistic god and all other theoi are "false" is itself an artifact of Abrahamic religion. Assuming that gods exist, a religion is essentially a god's propaganda. Before one starts evaluating religions, one must therefore evaluate the gods themselves (not the other way around). One must somehow independently establish exactly what gods are (Aliens? Immortal wizards?) and what motivates a given god. Unfortunately, the only information we have about most if not all gods is their own propaganda. If the Bible is YHVH's word, did it ever occur to you how problematic that makes it? It's like trying to choose a presidential candidate based solely on campaign ads.

My point is, even if I could find powerful enough evidence of one miracle to show that miracles are possible and send me back to square one in my understanding of physics, that would prove less than nothing. All it would do is open up several worlds of bewildering possibilities.

(If you'd grown up on Neil Gaiman, you'd think like this, too.)

What would consitute evidence of a miracle?

I think Spongebob has addressed this pretty well, but it's not my point at all. For a while now, I've been arguing under the assumption that miracles--including the resurrection--are real. Whether I am actually able to acknowledge this possibility on an intellectual or emotional level is irrelevant for the purposes of this argument.

My point is that if miracles (events that drastically contradict our understanding of the laws of physics beyond compromise) can be verified, all that shows is that we understand much, much less about the world than we think. This doesn't answer any questions, it just shows that there are things out there that want to answer them for us. Your Terminator 2 analogy doesn't work, because my state's governor doesn't claim to be omnipotent and thus able to prove to Sarah why she should trust him. All YHVH did, at most, was resurrect a few people, heal a few more, and stick up for the nation he'd invested in. That is miles from absolute power over life and death and light years from omnipotence. You can argue that most of what he's (claimed to have) done (at least in the New Testament) has been benevolent, but I'm not so quick to trust enlightened despots, especially ones who are so closed-handed.

I have friends who truly take supernaturalism to its logical conclusion. They will go on about fairies, gods, and Illuminati (who may actually all be the same thing) in the same breath as the Iraq war and quantum physics, and then go on to rant about religious creationists, not for being creationists, but because they're too quick to discount aliens. They're in a sort of philosophical alliance with atheists because they don't have much trust for whatever is out there (some of them want to call themselves atheists, but I keep telling them they don't count). This is honest supernaturalism. It provides none of the comfort people tend to get from religion; it's a very disconcerting way to look at the world.

[Matt]

Wow, big change in gears here. OK, I understand your comment here mainly because I was once there myself. And I can't honestly blame anyone who takes this position. If it makes you feel better about dying and absolves your fear, then I suppose it does you some benefit. But by doing this, you must realize that you are allowing fear to lead your decision making instead of critical thinking. Now, neither approach is absolutely without fault, but I believe that emotions are vastly more easy to manipulate, particularly if the manipulation begins in childhood.

I agree that I am somewhat guilty of being driven by fear and emotion--but not any more so than most people. I think that if we were honest with ourselves, we would admit that most, if not all, of the decisions that we make are based on emotion (even if we can justify our decisions rationally).

I think this is a good place to be. But you must understand that along with that belief in Jesus comes many unspecified expectations about who will lead and direct your life. Not all of those forces are honest about their motivations. Christians are not asked to simply believe; they are inevitably called upon to act on those beliefs, often in ways that conflict with more logical, rational ways of life. That's where religion becomes a problem. If you can be flexible and make room for critical analysis and reality within your faith, then you will be fine. But so often, faith breeds inflexible, irrational thinking

I would admit that Jesus calls us to do things that seem irrational. Loving our enemies is irrational. Turning the other cheek is irrational. Rejoicing in our persecution is irrational. And yet, there is something about Jesus' life that screams that He knew what He was talking about. Perhaps what "seems rational" isn't always the best way.

The scientific method is not subjective, nor biased.

I would disagree. First, what is the scientific method? I bet if we asked all you atheists to independently submit your versions of the scientific method, that you wouldn't agree. I have heard top scientists confess that this is a weakness of their discipline.

Second, the scientific method is based upon an outmoded philosophy--namely that an "objective observer" can somehow arrive at "objective knowledge" of the universe. We now know that this is not true. There is no such thing as an objective observer, so all scientific "truth" is necessarily perspectival truth.

Third, the scientific method is based on the assumption that everything that is true can be observed through the five senses and duplicated in a laboratory. It also assumes that reality is always predictable. IMO, these assumptions are invalid.

This is simply untrue, objectivity is certainly possible and practiced. You may be thinking about absolute knowledge, which we do not have. That is not the same as objective knowledge. "Objective" just means that no personal bias or partiality is involved.

I agree. This is what I am saying does not exist--unless you are a robot. At the same time, I believe that an objective reality is out there, we just don't have objective access to it. But, I still think we can "know" things, just not in the modernist sense.

Because you aren't objective, you are subjective. If 10 or 20 really creative members all conversed with me, checked my IP address, cross referenced the personal information I've offered, it would be possible for them to determine my home address and call me up on the phone. If a few of them were hackers, they could do this in a matter of minutes. That's objective!

There would still be the possibility that said hackers were lying to me. I wouldn't put it past them.

This is an ancient story with no verification.

As I said, the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances.

There are thousands of such stories, many of which are identical and pre-date the Jesus myth

Examples?

There must be some kind of verified miracle in modern times, no? Anything?

Tell me the criteria for verifying a miracle.

I watched Chris Angel walk on water on TV last night. Now that sounds pretty miraculous. Did he really walk on water? I have my own eye sight as evidence.

Maybe he was the first century's equivalent of Chris Angel--He was accused of being a magician.

But the problem with such things is that they have no substance and they are completely subjective. What now qualifies as evidence? Virtually anything? Who's to say I'm wrong and you are right? This is the upshot of this kind of thinking

Remember what has been said throughout this thread--historical evidence is not the same as scientific evidence because history, by its very nature, cannot be repeated.

Certainly a lot of people believe that John Edwards can really speak to the dead. Is that convincing to you?

I have been heavily influenced by John Edwards (inside joke)

Which exactly no one can verify really happened.

See my comments on historical evidence, or N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God for a 738 page explanation.

Actually, no. I think the skeptic is in the best possible position. He knows for sure that he's not committed to false ideals. And even those ideals that he is committed to are under constant scrutiny, just in case. He's always learning and never loses interest in new information, which keeps him sharp and well informed. I wouldn't have it any other way.

His position is also, if applied consistently, self-defeating.

[spongebob]

I agree that I am somewhat guilty of being driven by fear and emotion--but not any more so than most people. I think that if we were honest with ourselves, we would admit that most, if not all, of the decisions that we make are based on emotion (even if we can justify our decisions rationally).

Well, fear is certainly a powerful emotion. It is embedded into virtually every animal form we know of, which is good evidence of its evolutionary roots. But as the most intelligent species on the planet, I believe we can and should strive to recognize our fearful motives and rise above them.

I would admit that Jesus calls us to do things that seem irrational. Loving our enemies is irrational. Turning the other cheek is irrational. Rejoicing in our persecution is irrational. And yet, there is something about Jesus' life that screams that He knew what He was talking about. Perhaps what "seems rational" isn't always the best way.

OK, matt, so why don’t I, the atheist, disagree with these same concepts? What motivates me to value such ideas? The problem with this thinking is that it is archaic. It isn’t that loving our enemies is an irrational thing to do; it’s a counter-intuitive thing to do. There are actually some very, very good and rational reasons to “love” thy enemy as thyself, to turn the other cheek, and so on. One very obvious reason is that conflicts can be solved more quickly and with less violence, and this is a commonly used form of conflict resolution. The only drawback is that you usually don’t get everything you want. The greatest advantage to this approach to conflict resolution is that you can very likely get what you need and you don’t make enemies in the process; you make allies! And for the record, Jesus was not the first, or last, human being to advise us in this way.

I’m sure you didn’t intend for this to veer deeply into this direction. Just understand that I and most atheists, freethinkers, agnostics, humanists…critical thinkers, we all agree on one thing, and that is the belief that rational, critical thinking can solve almost any problem. Rational thinking isn’t always the first or most obvious ideas one comes up with, but they are the one’s based on reason and not emotions, certainly not superstition.

First, what is the scientific method? I bet if we asked all you atheists to independently submit your versions of the scientific method, that you wouldn't agree. I have heard top scientists confess that this is a weakness of their discipline.

You lose that bet, matt. There is already a thread on this subject under general discussions. You will find very little deviation amongst the non-theists here on the basis of what makes science, even less on what constitutes the scientific method. For sure, there are some differences, but they are minute. The SM itself is just so simple that it’s kind of hard to disagree to much degree.

Hypothesize
Test (or gather evidence)
Observe
Repeat

That’s about it.

Second, the scientific method is based upon an outmoded philosophy--namely that an "objective observer" can somehow arrive at "objective knowledge" of the universe. We now know that this is not true.

Wrong again, matt. Can you give me just one example that demonstrates your idea? Again, I really think you are confusing objective knowledge with absolute knowledge. Do you understand the difference? There's a big difference.

There is no such thing as an objective observer, so all scientific "truth" is necessarily perspectival truth.

Wrong again. Consider the theory of special relativity. This is a scientific “truth”, if you will, of the universe. It isn’t perfect, mind you, but it is accurate to such a degree that for our purposes it is virtually perfect. This theory is vastly useful to human beings, from allowing us to determine the mass, trajectory, age, density and many other things about planetary bodies, right down to allowing us to take advantage of these universal “truths” to construct highly useful gadgets, such as your humble GPS or satellite radio. Now, one man discovered the concept for this idea, but it has been verified over and over again and again by thousands of individuals. This is what makes it objective, not the fact that one man discovered it, but that many, many more checked his math. You seem to be under the impression that one must be more than human to uncover objective truths. This is just not so. You would have to demonstrate why this is so to make your point resonate. Right now it seem as if you are just making a claim that is virtually impossible to demonstrate, even philosophically.

Third, the scientific method is based on the assumption that everything that is true can be observed through the five senses and duplicated in a laboratory. It also assumes that reality is always predictable. IMO, these assumptions are invalid.

Sort of, but not exactly, matt. No, we are not limited to only our 5 human senses to “measure” the universe. Let’s see, do you know anyone who has a Neutrino detection sense? Didn’t think so. Yet we know these particles exist and have physically detected their existence. How about the wave/particle behavior of light? is it possible for a human to detect this? Not without help, that's for sure. And what about atomic mass and charge? Matt, none of these things are detectable by human senses. But that's why we invented technology. Point is, humans can construct devices to measure quantities and qualities that we cannot sense with our meager human senses. And we don’t have to “duplicate” anything in the laboratory. This is just a misunderstanding that I can further educate you on if you like.

Regarding predictability, you are kind of correct here, but you don’t seem to appreciate the value of it. Look, our evaluation of universal laws have revealed repeatability in the universe, its' that simple. If we did not observe this kind of repeatability, the laws would not predict the behavior of our universe and thus would not exist. And when I say “laws would not exist”, I mean that humans would not have constructed precise mathematical formulas that represent these universal behaviors. The laws only exist because we observe the universe to exist in this way. So is the universe is not predictable, why haven't we observed this? In fact, matt, universal laws are pretty easy stuff. There are far more esoteric concepts than universal physical laws. Like chaos mathematics, for instance. Where the heck does that stuff come from? Yet, predictability is there, in a place no one ever expected to look. What you seem to be missing out on is the most fun part of the universe and science. Hey, man, my belief is that if god really does exist, if he's really out there, he's laughing at us through the numbers. He's showing himself through the universal truths, but we just don't understand the language. You really need to get over this "hump"; it's kind of important and it's limiting your thought process.

Now, you seem to be arguing that even though we seem to always observe these universal truths as repeatable, they are not so and we can’t seem to observe this. Call me crazy, but this is circular logic, and quite irrational. It's like saying that the sun isn't really there, high in the sky, burning my skin as I sit on the beach and scorch. In fact, this is exactly what scientists use to determine when a law is not perfect, when there is a flaw or something missing from the theory. Newton’s laws of gravitation is a prime example of this; they were flawed, or rather, inadequate. Einstein made a major correction with his theory of relativity, but even that is likely incomplete, though to a degree that we may never realize. But you can bet that some scientist somewhere is digging, probing, looking for that flaw, hoping to make a name for himself. So there’s just no reason to have these crazy notions that universal laws are not predictable; there’s just nothing to it. And if you don’t believe me, the cool thing is that you can try to prove me wrong any time you like. Science is open to anyone to try his best and it will flex with new evidence, unlike religion, which shatters when bent too far.

This post is getting long, so I’ll stop here and finish your comments with a new one.

[spongebob]

I agree. This is what I am saying does not exist--unless you are a robot. At the same time, I believe that an objective reality is out there, we just don't have objective access to it. But, I still think we can "know" things, just not in the modernist sense.

Matt, it doesn’t take a robot to produce objective knowledge. As I said before, it only takes one person to conceive of an idea, but it takes many more to properly fit it into the web of scientific knowledge. This is done through challenging any new scientific idea. This process makes the idea objective because it does not come from one perspective. Sometimes, as with evolution and cosmology, it may go through generations of scientists with vastly different experiences and perspectives. How can anything stay subjective under such conditions?

It sounds a little like you are talking about the philosophical position known as the Matrix argument, after the movie of course. That we humans can't know our environment because we are living in an hallucination. is this what you are talking about? if so, I'll just stop right there because it's not a discussion worth having unless I'm drunk. And even then it can't be taken seriously.

And how else might we "know" things?

There are thousands of such stories, many of which are identical and pre-date the Jesus myth

Examples?

Are you kidding? You’re not aware of this? Ah, I’ll look up some references for you and post them. It’s late right now and I just want to go to bed. Later…

Tell me the criteria for verifying a miracle.

See James Randi’s website. He does it better than I can. http://skepdic.com/randi.html

Remember what has been said throughout this thread--historical evidence is not the same as scientific evidence because history, by its very nature, cannot be repeated.

But we weren’t talking about historical evidence, we were talking about personal experiences (at least I was). Yet historical evidence is not much better. I have plenty of reasons to support that, but won't go into them at this point.

I think the skeptic is in the best possible position. He knows for sure that he's not committed to false ideals. And even those ideals that he is committed to are under constant scrutiny, just in case. He's always learning and never loses interest in new information, which keeps him sharp and well informed. I wouldn't have it any other way.

His position is also, if applied consistently, self-defeating.

How so?

[spongebob]

I am not denying at all that the claim that Jesus rose from the dead has no relevance to someone who rejects miracles. I am just questioning the reason for rejecting miracles a priori.

In that case, let me explain that we don't reject miracles a priori any more than we reject aliens. We've yet to see a miracle verified. If we have no verified miracles, then it is logical to conclude that none exist...as yet, or at least none we've uncovered. We are more than willing to see them verified, but taking someone's word for a miracle does not constitute verification; you're just accepting someone's testimony, which is pretty much worthless.

A miracle is an act (of god?) that runs contrary to the way things normally work.

But where are these things, matt? WHAT things run contrary to how they normally work?

Here is your reasoning:
Everything true can be duplicated in a laboratory
Miracles cannot be duplicated in a laboratory
Therefore, miracles are not true.

Nope, that's not my philosophy at all. No need to "duplicate" anything in a lab. Just demonstrate something that does not follow the laws of the universe. If New York city suddenly vanished and appears in Utah. That would not be duplicated in any lab, but it would sure challenge what we know of the universe. This isn't circular logic, as you are attempting to assert. It's merely applying the same rules of the science to supposed miracles. A miracle should be no less prone to scientific study than anything else. Why should it?

I am challenging premise 1 as an incorrect assumption. I am suggesting that perhaps there is a category called "miracles"--a subset of the category of "things that are true" that is not in the subset of the category "things that can be duplicated in a laboratory." You are replying that this can't be because "Everything true can be duplicated in a laboratory." This is just a restatement of your original premise, not an argument.

No, matt, you're not quite understanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying anything about laboratories. If "A" occurs, then the expectation is that it must abide by the laws of the universe. But what if it doesn't seem to? What if, as I said, New York city suddenly disappears and reappears in Utah? How do we explain that? We aren't going to do so in any lab. But there may well be plenty of evidence to find clues as to what happened and why. Was it a miracle or is there an explanation that fits within the known laws of the universe. So far there is nothing that has been documented that breaks the laws of the universe. The resurrection is an ancient story. There's plenty of ancient stories of things that don't abide by the universal laws. I'm sure you don't accept them all as true, right? That's all I'm saying.

Good for Randi. I suggest he do something better with his money.

You don't get it, do you? If someone truly has the ability to defy universal laws, this is free money and an opportunity to speak to the world! Why wouldn't a healer or speaker to the dead not want this money? Think of the good they could do with it and of the power to transform minds and people if they just demonstrated their powers.

all they have to do is demonstrate it under controlled conditions

Do you see the special pleading inherent in this request?

Matt, you don't understand what special pleading is. This is not special pleading. This is what is required to keep someone honest. Benny Hinn can demonstrate his powers of healing any time you like under his conditions, which means he's going to fake it. Wouldn't you like to see someone demonstrate real miracle healing? Wouldn't that help your faith become a little stronger?

demonstrate it under controlled conditions
Now do you see it?

I can see you ignoring the obvious. Miracle men are con men, matt. Do you believe them all? How do you decide if you have no criteria, no standards? Are your powers of observation that good?

Perhaps a miracle is like porn. I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

Well, that's fine for you, but you aren't going to convince anyone if you use a definition like that because it's meaningless to anyone but you. How about this, your boss says he won't tell you what he's going to pay you, he'll know what's fair when it strikes him and he'll send that to you. Would you accept that? And btw, I think I could define porn adequately for most people.

I think this is a perfectly legitimate question to ask. You are approaching this discussion with the assumption that miracles are not a legitimate category, and you are putting the burden of proof on me to suggest otherwise. I am challenging your right to do this.

matt, you're pretty good at misinterpreting what I'm saying. You can dispense with the "miracles are not a legitimate category" fallacy. My contention, as is every skeptic, is that the term "miracle" or "magic" is an unknown quantity, as yet to be demonstrated. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but that we are still looking for evidence that it does. And the burden of proof most certainly does rest on the one making the claim of magic. I don't need any right to ask this; it's just the way virtually everything is done in this world. Any claim must be supported. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Think about this before you respond. What kind of claim to you NOT need evidence for? What kind of claim really makes you shake your head and say out loud "I want to see some evidence of that". What if you heard a news headline on the radio, "Intelligent life found on the moon". Would you just accept that as real news or would you want to see/hear something more than just the DJ's word?

Further, it is not your demand of evidence that is special pleading, it is your demand of evidence of a certain kind--i.e. a kind that fits your construction of reality.

Oh, but matt, I've never defined "evidence of a certain kind". Show me where I have, please. As far as I'm concerned, the only kind of evidence that means anything is objective evidence. That means that it cannot be anecdotal (he said, she said). Anything less is just worthless. Don't you agree?

This is the definition of a naturalist--someone who believes that all reality can be described by natural (i.e. not miraculous or supernatural) phenomena.

But a naturalist isn't not restrained by that, matt. Anyone is capable of changing his mind under new evidence. The skeptic certainly is. Is the super naturalist not?

Ha! You're giving up ground. Yesterday you would have said that a miracle is impossible, not just unlikely.

I never said any such thing, matt. You'll have to show me the quote.

I don't disagree with you. Most miraculous claims are spurious. But that doesn't mean that some aren't.

Ah, OK, define this "some". Where are they? Look, if I'm going to accept a major break in the universal laws of physics, I want more information than "some" and "maybe' and "so-n-so". I want specifics, details, data. I'm a SKEPTIC! You have to convince me.

Let's say that medical miracles really do happen, just for grins. How many and of what severity should we consider to be reasonable? Let's just rule out simple injuries, like cut fingers or bruises mysteriously healing instantaneously. Let's say only life threatening injuries or diseases. A man falls from a building and breaks his neck, but wakes up a few minutes later and walks away, thanking god. A woman is impaled by a car, severing her lower limbs, but when the car is pulled away the legs suddenly reattach. A child ingests poison and dies in the arms of his mother, but wakes up the next morning. A man dies on the operating table of heart failure, only to wake up hours later in the morgue. And why limit it to just humans? Humans value and rely on animals, so an animal miraculously surviving an injury is just as important. How many times has a seeing eye dog, crushed by a car, woke up an hour or day later? Oh, sure, we have the cases of tumors that suddenly stop growing and even shrink. And some chronic diseases have seen spontaneous healing. But an ALS patient suddenly regaining all muscular control? A life-long diabetic suddenly cured? Does Meier offer any examples such as these? Or does he insist that miracles have to be more subtle than that?

Again, this is special pleading. Why do miracles have to be of a specific kind that you see fit to be legitimate?

You just don't understand what special pleading is, matt. Here's a definitions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Further, just because I haven't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have never seen you.

This is a poor argument for miracles. I am most certainly verifiable. Maybe not with the limited resources that you have, but certainly with a modest application of resources, my identify could be confirmed in only a few hours. But I'm only a common person, matt. There's no challenge there, nor a need to be. When we talk of magic and miracles, there's a real need to be careful and consistent because cons and shams are designed to look like magic in order to take advantage of people. So, if you can't adequately define or verify a miracle, then you will never know when one is genuine or just a con. I suggest you visit John Edwards or Sylvia Browne and pay them some money.

I believe that I have experienced the supernatural, although admittedly not of the kind you are demanding. That doesn't bother me at all.

Again, I have not demanded anything except verification. I don't know what you've experienced, but if it is personal feelings, voices in your head, visions...etc, then those things are a dime a dozen; everyone has them in every culture and every religious persuasion. As an argument they are totally unconvincing.

Which is why I remain a skeptic, albeit an open-minded skeptic.

Sorry, matt. I've seen little evidence of that.

[ScottBarger]

<my $.02>

I for one would LOVE to see a real, honest to goodness, walk-on-water, loaves-and-fishes kind of miracle. It would make my job a whole hell of a lot easier.

</my $.02>

[whoosanightowl]

I for one would LOVE to see a real, honest to goodness, walk-on-water, loaves-and-fishes kind of miracle. It would make my job a whole hell of a lot easier.

LOL, yeah no kidding! And I would be forced to seriously consider rejoining the ranks!

[spongebob]

<my $.02>

I for one would LOVE to see a real, honest to goodness, walk-on-water, loaves-and-fishes kind of miracle. It would make my job a whole hell of a lot easier.

</my $.02>

Thanks for that affirmation, Scott. And I'm with you, brother.

[Rian]

<my $.02>

I for one would LOVE to see a real, honest to goodness, walk-on-water, loaves-and-fishes kind of miracle. It would make my job a whole hell of a lot easier.

</my $.02>

Yes and no ... I think you'd still get plenty of people refusing to accept it because they believe that there MUST be a naturalistic explanation. I think you'd also get the "hangers-on" types of people, too.

This talk of miracles reminds me of a poster here who said, over and over, that he wouldn't believe in God unless he saw him, and then a bit later on said that if he saw God, then he would think it must be a hallucination. Talk about defining yourself out of believing something ...