skepticdude

"The Jesus Legend: A case for the historical reliability of the Synoptic Jesus tradition" (or via: amazon.co.uk), by Paul Rhodes Eddy & Gregory A. Boyd, Baker Academic, 2007.

"While one is certainly justified in drawing on present human experience to make a case for what might have happened in the past, there seems to be no justification for drawing on present human experience to make a case for what could not have happened. in the past...There is nothing in the present human experience that indicates that our present experience exhausts what humans are capable of experiencing." (p. 63)

Eddy and Boyd fail to allow that between the two options they offer:

"might have happened in the past"

and

"could not have happened in the past"

there is a third option..what is most likely to have happened in the past.

Eddy and Boyd don't accomplish much with this critique of naturalism that leads into their main body of work (though they were smart for attacking the first obvious skeptical objection first).

My argument for denying the possibility of miracles is never touched in this recent scholarly attempt to debunk naturalism. The way I justify being closed to the possibility of miracles, is the argument from incoherence: miracles defy description. Miracles are supernatural acts. What's "supernatural"? Supernatural is a realm beyond the universe. What the hell does "beyond the universe" mean? Doesn't "universe" already refer to the sum total of all existing things?

So the failure of "supernatural" to pass the critieria of coherence is why it is safe to deny the possibility of miracles. Who in their right mind allows for the possibility of a thing that defies coherence? If cartoons and religious fiction have enabled us to imagine walking on water and floating in the air, disappearing from view and walking through walls, does that suddenly mean such concepts are coherent? It can happen in cartoons, so it makes sense?

Furthermore, things that dazzled ancient people, ceased to dazzle later generations, because scientific progress took the mystery away and gave good naturalistic reasons for phenomena. With that pattern having been established, what exactly is wrong with the confident assurance that things which dazzle us today will one day be explained by science?

If, as most Christian apologists admit, miracles are beyond the realm of empirical science, then belief in miracles can never be scientific. While it's ok to hold beliefs that can't be proven scientifically, it is not ok to set these forth with dogmatic confidence. Christians thus could fully live up to the biblical standard of assurance in the faith if they constantly had to hunker down in debates and admit that the stuff their god does is less than provable. Christians who go for a spin on this particular amusement park ride thereby open to the door to liberalism. Like my black Christian friend Toby always says, we can't hay 'dat.

Finally, why don't apologists tell us what minimum criteria must be fulfilled so that we can safely say some event was a miracle? Must at least 500 people swear on a stack of bibles (protestant or the ones that have the apocrypha too)? Must at least 2 atheist doctors go on Oprah saying they cannot explain some phenomena? Must the pile of discarded prosthetic devices at the foot of the statue be at least 3 feet 2.5 inches high? What exactly?:Cheeky:

Toto

Boyd and Eddy were discussed in this thread.

bacht

Right, a "miracle" as described by a 2nd temple Jew could be some phenomenon which has been explained by modern science, or something impossible according to what we know today but which could be explained in the future, or something which never could have been and never could be possible

Switch89

I think you could define a miracle as being a break in the laws of nature. Of course, this would mean anytime we discovered anything contrary to human experience it would be a miracle.

So I think I would modify that definition to "A break in the laws of nature which appear to have been caused by an intelligent agent attempting to show or teach humanity something". Prophecy, Someone being struck dead, or someone being raised from the dead are encompassed by this definition but it does not include things contrary to previous human experience.

Angra Mainyu

But how can the laws of nature be broken?

If it turns out that something happens, and it's against what our theories predict, then we need to upgrade our theories...but how were the laws of nature (if there are any) broken?

bacht

This is kind of a semantic issue: when we use the word "law" to describe processes in nature it doesn't have the same implications as its use in human society

Angra Mainyu

But it goes to the heart of the problem - it seems to me that the laws of nature cannot possibly be broken (that would be contradictory), so any definition of miracles in that manner would make them impossible.

Still, in case someone has a definition of "laws of nature" that makes it possible, I'm asking.

Switch89

Well, let's just say that a law is a regularity in nature which cannot be overcome by human or material means.

lpetrich

It's possible to define "miracle" out of existence by supposing that everything follows natural laws. But if one avoids defining miracles out of existence, then how does one tell what is and what is not due to natural law?

Perhaps we are stuck with a criterion like philosopher David Hume's, that we should accept the occurrence of some miracle only if its non-occurrence would be a bigger miracle.

Angra Mainyu

But that brings the issue of "material"; it's another problematic distinction.

As for human means, I don't think that that would do it. Some aliens, for instance, could have far more advance science and technology. Further, their science and technology could be beyond what humans could ever achieve (maybe, after a billion years of something genetic engineering they're just far more intelligent).

But that wouldn't make them supernatural, in common talk. I don't find the distinction non-arbitrary.

Still, perhaps if you can put "material means" more precisely - and what it is to overcome a regularity -, that could help.