Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JragonFli · 03-14-2002, 04:07 PM

What exactly is a miracle? Just to take a stab at it myself, I will define this concept. A Miracle:
1) Must be extreemly uncomon.
2) Must be public, not alone or unknown
3) Must not be natural
4) Must be devine, or supernatural, and provably so

By this defenition, is life a miracle?

1)...deffinately not
2) yes and know...life is both public, and private...life exists in locals in which conciousness doesn't
3) of course not....what is more natural than life
4) There is no way to prove this one....so it isn't

ps....nice to be back...I like the changes...but where are the old regulars?

Oolon Colluphid · 03-15-2002, 07:06 AM

Hi JragonFli, welcome back. Long time no post!

I would say that a miracle is simply the suspension of the laws and/or normal functioning of nature. So it doesn't have to be uncommon (though if they were too common, the laws of nature wouldn't be laws), nor does it matter who sees it, and the cause of it -- divine intervention, say -- would be the explanatory hypothesis, not a necessary aspect of it.

However, I doubt that any miracle, by that definition, could be acceptable to science. By which I mean, if god suddenly manifested himself and turned the atlantic into Wadworth's 6X, science would simply go "Oh. That's how it is, is it?" and get on with finding out more about it. Thus, it would not be supernatural, it would be a previously unexpacted bit of how the world is.

Oolon

Mageth · 03-15-2002, 09:46 AM

Oolon:

Interesting. Does this mean that I can say that, once a "miracle" has been observed, it is, in a sense, no longer a miracle, but a natural occurrence? This makes sense to me; once the supernatural (positing that such a thing exists) interacts with the natural world, it may be considered part of the natural world.

Francois Tremblay · 03-15-2002, 01:30 PM

It all comes back to the modus operandi problem now doesn't it ? What would it even mean for a supernatural being to act on the natural world, and can that connection be scientifically or philosophically relevant at all ?

For science the answer is no, since its method assumes materialism (which is perfectly normal, considering what it aims to do). But I'm not even sure that it would make sense philosophically - at least not unless we can define the "supernatural" in a positive way, which has never been done...

sullster · 03-16-2002, 09:53 AM

The Catholic Church is always seeking miracles, because they are necessary for a long dead person to become a saint. It is getting harder for them to roll out the simple stuff of the past since science has made some inroads in the minds of the masses. Thus, it seems they are always haunting hospitals and looking for someone to recover from something which most do not. Look at any newly minted saint and you will hear that they cured some lucky child at some hospital.

The church's miracle seekers are just jumping in where science can't come to total conclusions. Recovery from a deadly cancer, does not mean that it was a miracle, even if medical science can't explain it. There are many things not yet known about the immune sytem and cancer itself, yet the miracle seekers can grab a miracle out of this area.

The church's actions in these areas are the shameless promotion of superstition in order to promote their religion. They have every right to do so, since they are in the superstition business, but I feel that medical science should put these miracle claims into perspective. Science should not allow such nonsense to go unanswered. Every medical miracle claim should be contested and disputed.

Oolon Colluphid · 03-17-2002, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:
<strong>Oolon:

Interesting. Does this mean that I can say that, once a "miracle" has been observed, it is, in a sense, no longer a miracle, but a natural occurrence? This makes sense to me; once the supernatural (positing that such a thing exists) interacts with the natural world, it may be considered part of the natural world.</strong>

Pretty much, I guess. Should a miracle be sufficiently well observed, the reaction of science would not be that the laws of nature were broken, but rather, what is wrong with our present knowledge of the laws. So science says there's no such thing as the supernatural, because whatever the world is like is what is natural -- even if it were to include gods, ghosts and gremlins. That these things are highly unsubstantiated is irrelevant to their potential reality.

So the supernatural, if the word is of any use, is that which is currently unknown, and/or, that which is rejected as being too implausible, given what we already know. In other words, it's what science is already working on, and the probabably non-existent.

IMO, of course!

Oolon

ohwilleke · 03-18-2002, 07:30 AM

I would argue that a miarcle is basically three things:

(1) It is a phenomena which is contrary to laws of nature which are otherwise constant;

(2) that furthers some human moral purpose or human need;

(3) which cannot be reproduced in a manner that does not share the human moral purpose or human need present in the original case.

Define human to mean sentient being.

----------------------------

If a phenomena apparently violates the laws of nature, but can be reproduced or explained only with reference to the physical facts -- it is not a miracle, just a not yet discovered law of nature. Even if it does serve a human need.

If a phenomena is just weird without any apparent moral or human purpose, and apparently violates the laws of nature, and can't be reproduced or explained, it is just a fluke and probably an indicator that a law of nature that was believed to be an absolute law, is really just a probabilistic one. For example, all the air in your bedroom, could, randomly, end up in the closet for four or five minutes, killing you, consistent with the law of thermodynamics, but this is wildly improbable. If this really happened in your bedroom just before you were about to attack some highly persistent missionary, this might be viewed as a miracle. But, if this was observed in an empty physics lab that just happened to have monitors on with no one present, it would be just a fluke. Or it could indicate that the laws of nature just aren't as universal as they seem. But, some random weirdness is not really a miracle in the Biblical or religious sense.

I can't think of a single event ever identified as a miracle that didn't have moral meaning or respond to some human need. Some that did respond to human need (laying on hands) were reproducible, but only in connection with the human need or moral meaning.

Edited because I can't count.

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: ohwilleke ]</p>

Francois Tremblay · 03-18-2002, 10:55 AM

A miracle is an event that the observer is too stupid to explain.

Mageth · 03-19-2002, 06:38 AM

I would modify that to say "too ignorant to explain, and stupid enough to call it magick."

03-14-2002, 04:07 PM	#1
JragonFli Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Palm Beach, Florida Posts: 172	Definition of a Miracle in reference to science What exactly is a miracle? Just to take a stab at it myself, I will define this concept. A Miracle: 1) Must be extreemly uncomon. 2) Must be public, not alone or unknown 3) Must not be natural 4) Must be devine, or supernatural, and provably so By this defenition, is life a miracle? 1)...deffinately not 2) yes and know...life is both public, and private...life exists in locals in which conciousness doesn't 3) of course not....what is more natural than life 4) There is no way to prove this one....so it isn't ps....nice to be back...I like the changes...but where are the old regulars?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-15-2002, 07:06 AM	#2
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Hi JragonFli, welcome back. Long time no post! I would say that a miracle is simply the suspension of the laws and/or normal functioning of nature. So it doesn't have to be uncommon (though if they were too common, the laws of nature wouldn't be laws), nor does it matter who sees it, and the cause of it -- divine intervention, say -- would be the explanatory hypothesis, not a necessary aspect of it. However, I doubt that any miracle, by that definition, could be acceptable to science. By which I mean, if god suddenly manifested himself and turned the atlantic into Wadworth's 6X, science would simply go "Oh. That's how it is, is it?" and get on with finding out more about it. Thus, it would not be supernatural, it would be a previously unexpacted bit of how the world is. Oolon

03-15-2002, 09:46 AM	#3
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Oolon: Interesting. Does this mean that I can say that, once a "miracle" has been observed, it is, in a sense, no longer a miracle, but a natural occurrence? This makes sense to me; once the supernatural (positing that such a thing exists) interacts with the natural world, it may be considered part of the natural world.

03-15-2002, 01:30 PM	#4
Francois Tremblay Banned Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Montreal, QC Canada Posts: 876	It all comes back to the modus operandi problem now doesn't it ? What would it even mean for a supernatural being to act on the natural world, and can that connection be scientifically or philosophically relevant at all ? For science the answer is no, since its method assumes materialism (which is perfectly normal, considering what it aims to do). But I'm not even sure that it would make sense philosophically - at least not unless we can define the "supernatural" in a positive way, which has never been done...

03-16-2002, 09:53 AM	#5
sullster Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: North of Boston Posts: 1,392	The Catholic Church is always seeking miracles, because they are necessary for a long dead person to become a saint. It is getting harder for them to roll out the simple stuff of the past since science has made some inroads in the minds of the masses. Thus, it seems they are always haunting hospitals and looking for someone to recover from something which most do not. Look at any newly minted saint and you will hear that they cured some lucky child at some hospital. The church's miracle seekers are just jumping in where science can't come to total conclusions. Recovery from a deadly cancer, does not mean that it was a miracle, even if medical science can't explain it. There are many things not yet known about the immune sytem and cancer itself, yet the miracle seekers can grab a miracle out of this area. The church's actions in these areas are the shameless promotion of superstition in order to promote their religion. They have every right to do so, since they are in the superstition business, but I feel that medical science should put these miracle claims into perspective. Science should not allow such nonsense to go unanswered. Every medical miracle claim should be contested and disputed.

03-18-2002, 07:30 AM	#7
ohwilleke Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Denver, Colorado, USA Posts: 4,834	I would argue that a miarcle is basically three things: (1) It is a phenomena which is contrary to laws of nature which are otherwise constant; (2) that furthers some human moral purpose or human need; (3) which cannot be reproduced in a manner that does not share the human moral purpose or human need present in the original case. Define human to mean sentient being. ---------------------------- If a phenomena apparently violates the laws of nature, but can be reproduced or explained only with reference to the physical facts -- it is not a miracle, just a not yet discovered law of nature. Even if it does serve a human need. If a phenomena is just weird without any apparent moral or human purpose, and apparently violates the laws of nature, and can't be reproduced or explained, it is just a fluke and probably an indicator that a law of nature that was believed to be an absolute law, is really just a probabilistic one. For example, all the air in your bedroom, could, randomly, end up in the closet for four or five minutes, killing you, consistent with the law of thermodynamics, but this is wildly improbable. If this really happened in your bedroom just before you were about to attack some highly persistent missionary, this might be viewed as a miracle. But, if this was observed in an empty physics lab that just happened to have monitors on with no one present, it would be just a fluke. Or it could indicate that the laws of nature just aren't as universal as they seem. But, some random weirdness is not really a miracle in the Biblical or religious sense. I can't think of a single event ever identified as a miracle that didn't have moral meaning or respond to some human need. Some that did respond to human need (laying on hands) were reproducible, but only in connection with the human need or moral meaning. Edited because I can't count. [ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: ohwilleke ]</p>

03-18-2002, 10:55 AM	#8
Francois Tremblay Banned Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Montreal, QC Canada Posts: 876	A miracle is an event that the observer is too stupid to explain.

03-19-2002, 06:38 AM	#9
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I would modify that to say "too ignorant to explain, and stupid enough to call it magick."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.