Can a rational person believe in miracles?
Rationality and miracles are seemingly in conflict. Rationality is about reason and natural explanations. Miracles are about emotion and supernatural forces. Can the two be reconciled?
My friend sent me a fascinating explanation from The Language of God, a book by Francis Collins, a leader of the Human Genome Project. Collins suggests that rational people can believe in miracles, and he provides an interesting example.
A small introduction to Bayes Theorem
The example uses Bayes Theorem, which is a particularly useful formula in game theory and probability.
Briefly, Bayes Theorem is a formula for computing the probability of an event “conditional” on a base or “prior” hypothesis. In practical applications, Bayes Theorem is useful for determining the likely cause of an event.
An example is that a doctor mentally uses Bayes Theorem when diagnosing a patient. The doctor begins the examination with several “prior” guesses, and updates these probabilities “conditional” on the specific symptoms from follow-up questions. Many times one diagnosis comes out as the likely cause and treatments are administered accordingly. (Here is a more detailed explanation of the math).
Collins suggests we can think the same way after witnessing a truly exceptional event. We can ask whether the event was the result of a natural cause or a divine intervention and use Bayes Theorem to make our guess precise.
A fun example
Here is how Collins makes the idea concrete:
Consider the following example. You have been taken captive by a madman. He gives you a chance to be set free—he will allow you to draw a card from a deck, replace it, shuffle, and draw again. If you draw the ace of spades both times, you will be released.
Skeptical of whether this is even worth attempting, you proceed—and to your amazement you draw the ace of spades twice in a row. Your chains are released and you return home.
Being mathematically inclined, you calculate the chances of this good fortune as 1/52 x 1/52 = 1/2704. A very unlikely event, but it happened. A few weeks later, however, you find out that a benevolent employee of the company that manufactured the playing cards, being aware of the madman’s wager, had arranged that one out of every hundred decks of cards be made up of fifty-two ace of spades.
At this stage, you would consider the likely causes of your drawing two aces of spades. Was it chance from the regular deck, or was it a sure thing from the miracle deck?
So perhaps this was not just a lucky break? Perhaps a knowledgeable and loving being (the employee), unknown to you at the time of your capture, intervened to improve the chances of your release. The likelihood that the deck you drew from was a regular deck of fifty-two different cards was 99/100; the likelihood of a special deck of only aces of spades was 1/100. For those two possible starting points, the “conditional” probabilities of drawing two aces of spades in a row would be 1/2704 and 1, respectively. By Bayes’s Theorem it is now possible to calculate the “posterior” probabilities, and conclude that there is a 96 percent likelihood that the deck of cards you drew from was one of the “miraculous” ones.
In this particular example, a rational person would conclude the good fortune was likely the result of the “miracle.”
Verifying the example
The example can be verified using through a probability tree. Here is how you might compute the odds of the “miracle” deck versus the “regular” deck using Bayes Theorem:
Hedge to example
The example makes it seem like many chance events should be considered miracles.
The misleading part of the example is assigning a very high prior to the miracle deck of 1 in 100. By construction, Collins makes the chance of a miracle deck more than 25 times as likely as drawing two aces of spades. This inflates the chance that drawing two aces came from the miracle deck.
In fact, if we vary the likelihood of the miracle deck, then the probability of that explanation diminishes quickly. If the miracle deck happened with a frequency of one in a million, then the conditional probability falls to less than one percent. In that case, it would be more sensible to conclude the two aces were drawn as a chance outcome from the regular deck.
| Occurrence of miracle deck | Pr(miracle| 2 ace of spades) |
| 1/100 | 96% |
| 1/1,000 | 73% |
| 1/10,000 | 21% |
| 1/100,000 | 2.6% |
| 1/1,000,000 | 0.3% |
Though we cannot rule out miracles, we should put their frequency in perspective. Collins elaborates on the example in the book and comes to a similar conclusion. He explains that natural causes do explain a lot so they should be given a high prior probability.
Conclusion
If one accepts the supernatural can exist, then it is logically consistent to be rational and believe in miracles. However, if the supernatural is given a low prior probability, then Bayes Theorem implies that miracles will be rare.
What are your thoughts?
Share this post:
Previous post: Age old wisdom for dealing with the financial crisis
Other posts you may enjoy reading:
50 Responses to “Can a rational person believe in miracles?”
Miracles are always for thousands of years connected with faith, religion and fate. People who believe in miracles does not care about maths. Jump from cliff and believe in miracles that he can fly away is absolute stupidity. Not logical. But you are terminally ill and you pray for miracle, logically you know you are not in control but someone else is, so there is a chance of survival. Most of the believes are fueled by circulating such stories.
By Philip on Oct 14, 2008
Often the conversation regarding miracles quickly devolves into silliness, but thank you Presh for bringing it up here; it IS possible to look at it from a logical and reasonable angle.
Presh you hit the nail on the head when you stated “If one accepts the supernatural can exist”. Miracles are, by definition, only possible if there exists a “supernatural” realm so it is best to study the concept of “supernatural” first.
“Supernatural”, by definition, deals with “being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena”. In other words, miracles must come from the supernatural, and the supernatural exists outside of the universe (the “natural” realm).
If one studies the universe, one thing must eventually be dealt with… where does it end, IF it ends? From a logical standpoint, the problem of where/if the universe ends boils down to two possibilities — either it ends at some point, or it goes on forever (infinity). Other theories are essentially different versions of these two (the universe wraps around back upon itself) or sidestep the issue altogether (different dimensions, which don’t address the limits of this one).
The universe simply cannot go on forever. Infinity is a concept that can never actually exist in reality. As a result, the universe cannot go on infinitely. If it does, then it goes against some very fundamental laws governing everything else in the universe. An infinite universe makes no sense and in fact contradicts itself.
Since the universe can’t be infinite, it must have an end somewhere. If it does, we can rightly state that what is inside of that “end” is the natural realm, and what is outside of it is the supernatural realm. Believing that there is a supernatural realm does not require one to believe in a god or higher power, it can simply be a statement of fact based on evidence.
“then it is logically consistent to be rational and believe in miracles”.
By Norm on Oct 14, 2008
Philip it is quite a leap to go from “the universe ends somewhere and behind that the supernatural begins” to “miracles happen here on earth INSIDE the universe”
People who believe in miracles usually believe in ones that actually can be verified/tested and when put to the test miracles always fail.
By Hugo on Oct 14, 2008
Hugo, are you talking to Norm or Philip?
It is a leap, but I was simply showing how it is rational to believe that a supernatural realm exists. As Presh pointed out, from there it is “logically consistent to be rational and believe in miracles”. The leap is that the supernatural realm also needs the ability to interfere in this realm.
The possibility of miracles is often tossed aside by the assumption that no supernatural realm can exist, which is a false assumption to make.
By Norm on Oct 14, 2008
Indeed to you Norm, didn’t see that names are below the comments.
I do not see it as rational, the argument you are making is one of ignorance.
We both (I think) do not know if there is an end and even if there is an end we certainly do not know what is behind it but (and here your rationality is in question) you claim the end must exist and that what lies behind it is that which you call supernatural, and after that there is the leap that that supernatural interacts with the natural to create miracles.
It is not possible to prove a negative, but at some point one can safely drop the probability of something to 0, for miracles and other fantasy believed in by humans I think that time is long overdue.
This does not mean that the supernatural should be denied even if there is ever some evidence for it but humanity should start going forward without that assumption.
By Hugo on Oct 14, 2008
Hugo I am trying to keep things conceptual and you are consistently assuming things about what I have said and attributing them to me.
“Philip (Norm) it is quite a leap to go from “the universe ends somewhere and behind that the supernatural begins” to “miracles happen here on earth INSIDE the universe”” — I did not say anything like that. I was simply discussing the possibility of a supernatural along the lines of what Presh brought up. I could see where you might assume that so I played along and tried to elaborate for you.
“We both (I think) do not know if there is an end” — I agree that we don’t know. Both possibilities for the universe are a bit out of our reach to prove or disprove. However, there is a much stronger likelihood that the universe has an end; there is far far more evidence to back that up than there is that it is infinite.
“if there is an end we certainly do not know what is behind it but (and here your rationality is in question) you claim the end must exist and that what lies behind it is that which you call supernatural,” — If something is outside of the “natural” then by definition it is “supernatural”; I made no claim as to what properties that supernatural realm held.
“and after that there is the leap that that supernatural interacts with the natural to create miracles” — Please stop twisting my words. I clearly did not claim that this leap actually exists, I simply pointed out what I felt that the leap would need to be if miracles were caused by something within the “supernatural”.
By Norm on Oct 14, 2008
“This does not mean that the supernatural should be denied even if there is ever some evidence for it but humanity should start going forward without that assumption.” — I actually agree. I think the world would be a much better place if we ALL began going forward without ANY assumptions. I have my beliefs, but I base my interactions with others on facts and the acknowledgment that I cannot prove certain things to them. What you are doing Hugo is trying to take my attempts at remaining rational and conceptual back into the irrational realm where you can more easily attack them.
By Norm on Oct 14, 2008
I do believe the article is about miracles and you did quote :
“”then it is logically consistent to be rational and believe in miracles”"
just after you claimed that belief in the supernatural can be a statement of fact based on evidence:
“Believing that there is a supernatural realm does not require one to believe in a god or higher power, it can simply be a statement of fact based on evidence.”
I have reread your first comment and even there you put forward that there are theories for the universe not ending, from my basic knowledge I believe the theories for no end or edge to the universe outnumber those that do have an edge or end but then you just “toss” those theories that give no edge to the universe of the table with this broad statement
“The universe simply cannot go on forever”
Why? Just because you cannot conceptualize infinity does not mean it cannot exist.
You have not given any evidence for a supernatural realm, you have given a possibility of an unknown area outside of the universe in which you think it is logical and reasonable to place this supernatural you speak of.
I am not afraid to say that I do not know the nature of the universe and even less what would be there if there is something possible outside of it.
What I do know is that the probability of something supernatural or miracles here “inside” the universe can be safely set to 0.
By Hugo on Oct 14, 2008
Presh
Quite an interesting article, I do have a question based on your conclusion:
Given that we can assign a very low, but non-zero probability to *any* supernatural event, and the following two assumptions:
Invisible pink unicorns exist.
The stock market rallies when the unicorns are happy.
The U.S. stock market rallied recently, and while it could be related to their government’s intervention, I assert that I can rationally believe that it was in fact caused by the invisible pink unicorns being happy. Yay unicorn power!!
By RohoMech on Oct 14, 2008
Because I am rational, I believe in miracles, because I have personally experienced many miracles – small miracles, in my life in different countries. I have related thirty of these in my book, “SMALL MIRACLES” by Askin Ozcan (Outskirts Press- ISBN 1598001000)
I see no problem in combining the two- rationality and supernatural phenomena, as both are reality.
http://www.outskirtspress.com/smallmiracles
Available at 200 internet bookshops incl. http://www.bn.com and http://www.amazon.com under the author’s name and via 25.000 bookstores.
By askin on Oct 14, 2008
Let’s ignore, for the moment, the issue about whether or not it is rational to assigned a non-zero probability to the existence of the supernatural.
The problem I see is that you have set up situation where the existence of the supernatural is already assumed (or, perhaps, deduced from a prior set of premises not addressed in this article). And, based on that given, we can deduce the probability of a miracle stemming from the supernatural and compare it to the probability of an event not stemming from the supernatural.
The problem arises when you consider that most people use the alleged existence of miracles to justify their belief in the supernatural! This means that the argument is circular (The supernatural leads to miracles which lead to the supernatural) and not rational, miracles are not justified by the existence of the supernatural, or miracles can’t be used to justify the existence of the supernatural.
Since we are talking about rationality, we can only talk about the latter two of those three options.
If miracles suggests the supernatural (2nd option) then what suggests miracles?
Your article takes the third approach, that the supernatural suggests miracles, which raises the question: How can you rationally believe in the supernatural without using the aleged existence of miracles as support?
By Scott on Oct 14, 2008
“It is not possible to prove a negative, but at some point one can safely drop the probability of something to 0″ — Hugo, you have mentioned this “safely drop” or “safely set” to zero situation twice. What is the line which allows you to feel “safe” when you drop a probability to zero, but above which causes you to not feel “safe” doing so?
“How can you rationally believe in the supernatural without using the alleged existence of miracles as support?” — When you look at things in simple concepts and don’t allow all the religious baggage into the discussion, it is perfectly rational to believe in a supernatural realm, period. Once you start attaching properties to this realm, you have stepped off the rationality plane.
There may be theories that postulate an infinite universe but honestly, what is more rational… to believe that the universe could be infinite because you can’t find any reason to say it isn’t, or that it isn’t infinite because you can find no evidence that suggests it is?
Personally, I can acknowledge there is a possibility the universe may be infinite, but I simply feel safe dropping the probability of it to 0.
By Norm on Oct 14, 2008
The line is raised by evidence, as things stand supernatural/miracles have 0 evidence and humanity has spent enough time and resources to find evidence.
Show some evidence and I will up the probability of the supernatural and miracles.
“There may be theories that postulate an infinite universe but honestly, what is more rational… to believe that the universe could be infinite because you can’t find any reason to say it isn’t, or that it isn’t infinite because you can find no evidence that suggests it is?”
the most rational is to withhold belief in either until evidence is provided for one or the other. And none of that has anything to do with the supernatural, once there is a definite conclusion as to the nature of the universe we can start looking at what is behind it if there is such a thing.
Please provide your reasoning for dropping the probability of an infinite universe to 0, what tests have you done to discredit an infinite universe? Have you done as much tests for infinity as have been done to find supernatural events?
Also having a 0 probability of an infinite universe means that you probably have a conclusive theory for a finite universe, please provide it, you could still get the Nobel prize I think.
By Hugo on Oct 14, 2008
An irrational person would not believe in miracles.
The ordinary operation of the world would be fairly easy to predict by pure mathematics, but miracles happen all the time. Also miracles are miracles by situational definition, to win a lottery would be a miracle, but a person that has exactly the same odds as every other ticket holder. But the winner has a new definition of a miracle. In the example the miracle happens not when the person chooses two aces out of a fixed deck but when the madman bought or choose or didn’t look at the “miracle deck” what are the odds of him choosing a 1 in 100 deck or not checking the deck. Life itself is a miracle that millions of operations by chance work together to allow us to exist, that we continually beat disease, that are genes get put together in a way that carries on our ancestors DNA generation after generation after generation. Is that the odds of random “evolution” or is it a miracle of life that we don’t have mutations that eliminates our genetics.
By Rob on Oct 14, 2008
Hugo, you completely dodged my question. What probability percentage is your dividing line for “safely” dropping the probability to 0? Do you have one, or does it change based on your desire to assume something cannot possibly be? You brought up the concept of dropping probability to 0 “safely” and I would like you to explain the reasoning and parameters you have come up with.
“The most rational is to withhold belief in either until evidence is provided for one or the other.” — Right. However, there is ZERO evidence that anything exists that is infinite. Everything ever observed has proven to be finite. The onus rests squarely on you to provide any evidence at all that there is even a possibility of an infinite universe.
I have simply taken the evidence and come to the conclusion that since nothing has ever been observed that is infinite, then the universe, being a “thing”, is also not infinite. Since the universe is not infinite, it is finite and must have an edge. Anything beyond that edge is then, in definition only, supernatural… natural being defined as that which is inside of this universe.
By Norm on Oct 15, 2008
Norm
1.
I have not dodged anything, evidence really is what moves the bar.
And no evidence does not automatically mean 0% probability, but seriously searching for evidence for the supernatural/miracles for over 200 years and not finding anything for that long lowers my bar to 0% probability.
2.
Like I said, no evidence does not mean 0%, my probability for an infinite universe against a finite is exactly 49.9% (I’ll even leave some space for a (non-)infinite (non-)finite universe) I have not studied very much about it and really withhold any belief about it. I do know that “every thing” is not = “the universe”, it is not a given that properties that apply to all items of a group do not automatically apply to the group as a whole(1).
So, it really does come back to you, have you observed a finite universe?
Should I come across evidence about the universe that I find sufficient to tilt the scale one way or the other (or the other) I’ll let you know.
It really is you who claim there is more evidence for (note evidence FOR not lack of evidence against) a finite universe, so much so that you claim it can be a statement of fact, so I politely ask you for that evidence. But apart from saying that you cannot imagine an infinite universe you have not provided anything for the finite universe nor the supernatural.
3.
See above (every thing =/= the universe), you may consider the universe a thing but is is not logical to say that it should hold any of the properties of that which it contains. There are theories that suggest a finite universe but without an edge, can you explain how you so casually refute those theories.
(1) like for example all humans have a brain does not mean that humanity has a brain.
By Hugo on Oct 15, 2008
I first want to thank all of you for your comments. A special thanks to Norm and Hugo for the lively discussion with many interesting points.
I cannot respond to all points made here, so let me give my gut reaction.
First
Hugo and Scott raise good points that the example is somewhat flawed because Collins assumes what needs to be proved. That is, assuming the supernatural exists, and assuming that a miracle deck exists, automatically make it possible we can attribute the good fortune to intervention. It is the burden of the person putting forth the theory to provide positive evidence. Not the burden of a listener to provide negative evidence.
A good analogy is me claiming “I saw Bigfoot. Prove me wrong.” It would be absurd to ask a listener to gather evidence that showed I did not see Bigfoot. The reality is I must provide positive evidence that people can be skeptical about…
Second
The discussion of miracles has gotten too serious. Here are some “miracles” that were recently reported in the news. You tell me if they were real miracles:
–In Italy, wine started flowing inexplicably from water taps. Local residents yelled out “miraculo” in disbelief (was it Jesus?). Further investigation suggested it was a plumbing mistake at a wine festival.
–In the UK, a 13 year old collapsed on the tennis court from a heart attack. His heart stopped beating for 15 minutes (he was “officially dead”) but he amazingly survived.
–In India, an elephant was observed to attack the houses of villagers who earlier had damaged the temple of Ganesh, an elephant-headed Hindu god. The elephant had appeared at the temple one day after it was damaged. Also, it reportedly traveled 120 kilometers to exact the divine retribution.
Third
I often like to think of matters in practical terms. Imagine that miracles didn’t exist but they provided some hope to patients. That might keep them in good spirits. We do know that emotions play a big role in survival and patient compliance in treatment.
If false hope could improve patient survival, should you perpetuate the myth? Do the ends justify the means?
I sure hope some medical ethics class discusses a question like this. It’s a really important one.
By Presh Talwalkar on Oct 15, 2008
1. thanks for the call out
Go Bigfoot (http://www.bigfootnessie08.com/)
2. well, the well is explained in your example already, 0% probability of supernatural.
The elephant, from experience I know there are elephants in India, they can travel long distances and they can lose temper and destroy things, no supernatural intervention needed, still possible but my probability prediction of a supernatural event: 0%.
The boy, based on what you’ve given the boy may well have experienced a miracle however such things can happen in nature and a quick Google already provides some explanation, he was given CPR within seconds which dramatically increased his chances.
A lot of the comments on the article I found say that their supernatural god was involved in a beneficial way but the boy (who wanted to be a pro tennis player) can never play tennis again and needs medication for life, that does not seem beneficial to me.
And the article also states that about 8 young people a week suffer heart conditions, the chance that one of those young people has this kind of experience seems more and more natural to me and I again rate it 0%.
If someone has evidence my 0% can be changed.
3. I have read studies that show the contrary (ie. that having good positive emotions does nothing to increase survival rates for cancer patients, you still die in the same time frame but at least you’re not miserable).
So, that last part explains why for me yes, the ends justify the means, for a patient I would not crush their hopes or good thoughts and I have known and hope I continue to know when to just comfort instead of debate
But in other situations I seek the truth, and if the truth offends or huwts fweewings then so be it …
By Hugo on Oct 15, 2008
“–In Italy, wine started flowing inexplicably from water taps. Local residents yelled out “miraculo” in disbelief (was it Jesus?). Further investigation suggested it was a plumbing mistake at a wine festival.”
Hm. Seems to me that the incident was completely explicable. This is an example of why calling something a miracle is merely a premature conclusion.
“–In the UK, a 13 year old collapsed on the tennis court from a heart attack. His heart stopped beating for 15 minutes (he was “officially dead”) but he amazingly survived.”
Amazing indeed, but not miraculous. Studies have begin to show that it is not the stopping of the heart that kills the person, it is the resuscitation. The common conception is that after five minutes, the cells in the brain start to die, but this is not the case. What happens is when the brain cells are deprived of oxygen for a period of time, then start to get it again, *then* the cells begin to die as a reaction. A better explanation can be found here:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/35045/page/1
So the problem is not in the length of time, it is in the way we revive people whose brains have been without oxygen for a period of time.
“–In India, an elephant was observed to attack the houses of villagers who earlier had damaged the temple of Ganesh, an elephant-headed Hindu god. The elephant had appeared at the temple one day after it was damaged. Also, it reportedly traveled 120 kilometers to exact the divine retribution.”
Classic example of superstitious behavior: Establishing a causal relationship between two events when none actually exists. The only statistics I could find suggest that there is about one elephant attack a month in India, but India is a pretty big place. As far as how the Elephant traveled, that’s hard to say. Did they interrogate the elephant? Even if it did travel that far, how do they established that the Elephant had the motive of revenge for the entire trip, rather than simply stumbling upon the village and deciding to attack then?
Almost all miracle accounts leave out details. Since we do not have all the details we don’t know if any of those were pertinent. I’m very surprised that the Italian miracle was debunked since they are coo-coo for coco-miracles over there. But that just brings me back to the premature conclusion.
As our knowledge of the “natural” has increased the number of things dubbed “supernatural” has decreased and that trend shows no sign of stopping. At one point in the past, solar eclipses were thought of as miracles or supernatural.
By Scott on Oct 15, 2008
PRESH
Thanks for bringing up miracles and healing.
There have been scientific studies on that.
They studies were whether prayer (a thing that cannot be defined scientifically) would help in the healing of hospital patients.
It was proven that it does. The studied used both religious and non religious patients. Patients that both knew someone might be praying for them (Bayes Theroem effect) and those that did not.
If it was the Bayes effect only it should have showed that, but it didn’t it showed BOTH.
It showed prayer (supernatural) (beyond the natural provable) had an effect on the healing of patients.
By Rob on Oct 15, 2008
Rob, the (recent, large) study I have read about says just the opposite about prayer, those that don’t know they are being prayed for show no difference, those that know they are being prayed for show a higher instance of complications!
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
(please note that that study has been funded and done by a religious organization: The Templeton Foundation)
Of course if you start with the supposition that prayer works then even one flakey result will validate your belief.
By Hugo on Oct 15, 2008
“There are theories that suggest a finite universe but without an edge, can you explain how you so casually refute those theories.” — By looking at evidence. The only reason those theories exist is due to the size of the universe and our inability to see what we are talking about. Theories are nice, but they are not evidence. Can you explain how you so casually ignore the evidence (you haven’t dealt with that yet) and rely instead on theories as if they are enough to refute what I have said? Oh, and by the way, there are also theories that deal with multiple universes…. each one of which would be “supernatural” to ours. Why have you not brought up those ones?
As for not seeing something… do you believe in black holes? In this case, we have something that we can only believe is there because of the evidence of their existence. We cannot actually see them, but only their effects on surrounding matter.
By Norm on Oct 15, 2008
“As for not seeing something… do you believe in black holes? In this case, we have something that we can only believe is there because of the evidence of their existence. We cannot actually see them, but only their effects on surrounding matter.”
The possibility of the existence of black holes is based upon our knowledge of relativity. That is, the mathematics of the theory allow for such configurations.
Furthermore, it is a misconception that the only way to detect a blackhole is simply by the way other matter around it behaves. Blackholes can give off various sorts of radiation (that originate on or just outside the event horizon).
There is also the problem of equivocation here. When I say “I don’t see any miracles” and you say “Well we can’t see any black holes” we are using the word “see” differently. However, your implication is that because we are using the same word, we mean the same thing, thus implying that if we accept the existence of black holes we should accept the existence of miracles. This is fallacy.
When you say “We can’t see any black holes” you are simply referring to the visible light spectrum. Thankfully the manner in which we determine the existence of things is not limited to our ability to detect it in the visible light spectrum.
However, when I say “We don’t see any miracles” I mean there is 0 evidence, direct or indirect, that suggests there existence.
So you see (as in, understand) though we may use the same word we obviously mean drastically different things.
By Scott on Oct 15, 2008
>“There are theories that suggest a finite universe but
>without an edge, can you explain how you so casually refute
>those theories.” — By looking at evidence.
What evidence?
>”The only reason those theories exist is due to the size of
>the universe and our inability to see what we are talking
>about.”
So, again what evidence are you talking about then when you say “By looking at the evidence” since here you seem to say that there is no evidence…
Quite confusing.
>Can you explain how you so casually ignore the evidence
>(you haven’t dealt with that yet) and rely instead on
>theories as if they are enough to refute what I have said?
>Oh, and by the way, there are also theories that deal with
>multiple universes…. each one of which would be
>“supernatural” to ours. Why have you not brought up those
>ones?
How can you claim that I ignore anything when I grant you that as for theories about the nature of the universe I am open to all? I do not rely on any theories, I just give them quasi equal probability and withhold belief until I am convinced about one or the other.
I am open for the existence of a finite universe with the shape of an elephant and an edge like an orange if someone can provide evidence for it (you do not provide evidence for your proposition that the universe is finite, you only state that the opposite is not possible thus your suggestion must be it)
Again, multiverses do not propose that the other universes are “supernatural”, they may be exactly like ours, they may be filled with a light blue liquid and incessant elevator music, we do not know and that is the only logical answer?
I do see that you are slowly altering the meaning of supernatural to “things that are not in this universe”, clever, well done, but it still does not mean that your argument becomes valid.
>As for not seeing something… do you believe in black holes?
>In this case, we have something that we can only believe is
>there because of the evidence of their existence. We cannot
>actually see them, but only their effects on surrounding
>matter.
Ah, I never said I only believe in things that I see, you probably have me mixed up with someone else, the evidence for black holes is quite sufficient for assigning a high probability of existence to them, but it is less than the probability of the existence of for example this keyboard that I am typing on. If some evidence emerges that explains some of the things that are observed better than the current explanations that include black holes then I will readily accept these new propositions.
If someone claims that my keyboard does not really exist then I will need more than a simple explanation to persuade me that this keyboard does not exist.
What is your reply to the miracles put forth in Presh’s comment?
By Hugo on Oct 15, 2008
you are quoting one study
the STEP study on heart patients actually had a reverse effect
59% of those that were prayed for had MORE complications
religious people tend to be healthier
people that meditate seem to be healthier
it’s very hard to design a test that doesn’t have outside effect
Humans as a whole, when it comes to the crunch, believe in supernatural and miracles.
Is it just a want. When they are dying, or a loved one is in trouble or dying they beg GOD, mother nature, the universe for an exception, for the odds to be changed in their favor.
Theres an org that track prayer studies. It does state where they see flaws in the studies.
(NO study can be isolated completely) but as a whole they see benefit to prayer.
By rob on Oct 15, 2008
SCIENCE
is based only on what we can discover and record
this is a moving target
because science can’t see it, it does not mean it doesn’t exist, that there isn’t a co-relation.
if you can only shine your flash light on a certain area, it doesn’t mean there’s more around it
people see miracles, they can’t explain them scientifically, they can’t explain them mathematically with odds
it doesn’t mean they are supernatural or not supernatural
science describes the universe in terms of the big bang, because we see the universe flying apart at a certain rate that can be observed and measured
but what was before the big bang, that’s supernatural only because there is no way to know and measure and describe it.
how did it become infinitely small and infinitely dense? how did it explode?
life on this little blue planet under all the conditions necessary for it to exist is a miracle, the odds are beyond astronomical
they are beyond what is beyond natural
By rob on Oct 15, 2008
“but what was before the big bang, that’s supernatural only because there is no way to know and measure and describe it.”
It’s not supernatural because we don’t know what “it” is. The laws of physics break down when describing the Big Bang, but that’s not to say that future developments won’t resolve that issue.
“life on this little blue planet under all the conditions necessary for it to exist is a miracle, the odds are beyond astronomical”
The “odds” are incalculable. In order for you to calculate the “odds” of something you take the number of instances where an event occurs divided by the number of total possible outcomes.
The problem is we do not know all the configurations of the universe that would have allowed for life to appear, let alone know all the possible configurations of the universe, period. We lack the necessary variables to make such a calculation. Life is pervasive. Once conditions were right on Earth to support life, it appeared. If life were merely a chance event, one would expect some sort of delay from when life could have appeared to when it did. But there is no apparent delay which suggests that, rather than being chance, the apperance of live was inevitable. That, under the right conditions, the probability of life arising is close to 1.
Even assuming that everything is based on chance (which no scientific theory states or claims) we always have the anthropic principle as an explanation. Things are the way they are because if they were different we wouldn’t be here to talk about it.
In a previous article Presh talked about lottery conglomerates that wait until the jack-pot is large enough then purchase all possible combinations of tickets to ensure victory. If the winner lotto numbers were static, yet still unknown, the same result could be achieved by simply buying enough lottery tickets in succession. Eventually you will happen upon the winning combination. Even though it is chance is involved, your victory is inevitable. If you treat “life” as the winning combination then stumbling upon it is inevitable if enough permutations of possible universes are tried. Since we are “life” we would necessarily only be aware of the one time when we did arise and are ignorant of all other times.
By Scott on Oct 15, 2008
can you be rational and believe in miracles?
YES
rational is only based on your “current” understanding of natural
everything else is super(beyond)natural
i fully disagree with the life odds approaching 1
our “current” science knows that everything falls to a lower state through entropy
science and biologists know that dna mutations are filtered out or die off
every higher species (save humans) ignore or kill off their mutations, they surely don’t mate with them
science also knows that extinction is the norm
that the gene pool is reduced every time an outside disease or environmental condition puts a strain on the species. a smaller and smaller subgroup of genetics happens each time
there is no science that supports spontaneous life under correct conditions
science has been advancing tremendously and life creation and modification eludes them
life is a miracle, it’s outside of our current science
By rob on Oct 15, 2008
re the book discussing this
called the “language of God”
there several things i see in DNA
you could also call it the Lego of God
or the Lego of life, what they describe back to common ancester, i see as common lego blue prints
yes we share dna traits with apes
we are very alike why wouldn’t we
it’s a jump in thought to say common blocks mean common evolution – possible but a jump
we also share those building blocks with others although not assembled in the same ways
but when you understand how dna works
how the process of unzipping, combining, and rezipping how it avoids errors,( large mutations)and how those errors are filtered out
So is all these “miraculous” events, natural chance, or divine intervention, or still something beyond our science.
science doesn’t for me make the world more explainable more predictable, it makes it exponentially more complex more “miraculous” on ever deeper levels
By rob on Oct 15, 2008
“i fully disagree with the life odds approaching 1″
Obviously. The evidence, however, supports the notion of highly probable or inevitable abiogenesis, under the right conditions.
“our “current” science knows that everything falls to a lower state through entropy”
Science “knows” no such thing because that’s a falsehood. I believe (and correct me if I’m wrong) that this is a paraphrasing of the second law of thermodynamics which says that the entrop of closed systems always increases (that is, progresses towards increasing disorder).
“science and biologists know that dna mutations are filtered out or die off
every higher species (save humans) ignore or kill off their mutations, they surely don’t mate with them”
Also not true. Most mutations have no affect and are not filtered out in any special way. Of the mutations that do have affects those affects, admittedly are mostly bad, especially in more complex organisms. Bad mutations are usually fatal and rarely ever passed on, and die out. There are beneficial mutations, however, which, rather than dying out, increase in number since the organisms with them will out breed similar organisms without them. This is the basis of evolution.
“science also knows that extinction is the norm
that the gene pool is reduced every time an outside disease or environmental condition puts a strain on the species. a smaller and smaller subgroup of genetics happens each time”
At this point I’m going to have to ask for citations. Where exactly are you getting your information?
“there is no science that supports spontaneous life under correct conditions
science has been advancing tremendously and life creation and modification eludes them”
There is no theoretical model that explains how life happened. But there are plenty of plausible hypotheses. The issue is not primarily which is “possible” but which of those possible hypotheses actually happened. There is no disagreement that it actually happened.
We are also well on our way to reproducing those conditions and outcomes in labratory conditions .
We have the famous Miller-Urey experiments which produced organic compounds from inorganic precusors.
Sidney Fox’s experiments which showed that peptide structures can spontaneously form and that amino acids could spontaneously form from those peptides which they natural form spherical membranes.
And scientists at Penn State are busily creating artificial cells:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080515171023.htm
So, we don’t have 100% of the details and we probably never will. This doesn’t prohibit us from developing and accepting theories. It’s detective work. Like solving a crime. Your suspect isn’t going to give you the information, you must derive it from the evidence. Yeah, you could always be wrong, but the more direct and conclusive evidence you find, the smaller that window shrinks.
Now view this in comparison to other suggestions at how life created, which don’t have evidence (rather there are mountains of evidence that contradict them) and I think the choice is pretty easy.
“life is a miracle, it’s outside of our current science”
Biologists (The scientific study of life) disagree.
By Scott on Oct 15, 2008
I like this article. First, I did not get it. But I think that the point is this: People tend to attribute events to miracles whenever rational rules assign a very low probability to them.
I would not say that rationality and believing in magic goes hand in hand, though. Let’s modify the inputs in the example above a little. If the belief (or prior probability) in the existence of a magic deck was zero, posterior probability that the deck is magic would be zero even after drawing two aces. This means that if a person doesn’t believe in magic at all, argument by Bayes rule cannot persuade this person otherwise even facing such an improbable event like drawing two aces of spades.
If the person is not sure about the existence of magic, it means that he/she can assign a positive probability to its existence (like 1 case in 100 as in the example above). After drawing two aces by such a person, it would rationally assign this event to a miracle (and it should be true with the 96% probability).
Now imagine that there is no deck at all. It was a rumor. But the person doesn’t now that and so the subjective prior probabilities are the same as in the example. Although there is no magic deck, after drawing two aces there is a 96% subjective posterior probability that it was due to magic. Although in fact it would be a very rare event (with the probability of 1/2704) which actually in this case happened. When something has a little probability of happening, it means that it is improbable, not impossible.
Bottom line: Existence of rare events can nurture the belief in miracles even if they do not exist. Assumption is that people consider them as a possibility, even though very unlikely possibility. If somebody does not believe in miracles, there is no rational argument to persuade the person otherwise (as we could witness in the discussion of Norm and Hugo
). The belief or disbeliefs in miracles depends on the subjective prior probability.
By Tomas on Oct 15, 2008
The black hole example is simply an illustration that we can believe in things we cannot “see” based on evidence…. there are probably many more examples as well. We do this all the time and yet once any mention of any possibility of anything “supernatural” comes around the discussion, this line of evidence = conclusion is not allowed. I have used all of the evidence in existence, and yet have been told I am not providing evidence!
If the universe, as a container, does not follow the rules of the matter it contains, doesn’t that line up with the definition of “supernatural”? Interesting… I am irrational for using evidence, and those who postulate that no “supernatural” anything need exist but the universe could be supernatural in it’s properties are rational.
Now I’m starting to twist words around
I think I’ll let Rob carry on from here. I have my son’s birthday party to deal with.
By Norm on Oct 15, 2008
“The black hole example is simply an illustration that we can believe in things we cannot “see” based on evidence….”
Well I’m sorry you are not aware of the evidence for black holes.
By Scott on Oct 15, 2008
second law thermodynamics
tend to a lower energy state
chaos
every thing breaks down
it takes enegy to maintain equilibrium
open system /closed system does not matter
all things go to lower state
health is the ability to fight off decay
it takes energy to maintain health
aging is our body slowly failing at health and repairing itself
the fossil record does NOT show evolution
it shows thousands of species that no longer exist
evolution is not changing of a species, its the species changing to fit conditions
bees and grains have been selectively bred fro thaousands of years to produce more, or to be able to thrive in certain conditions
but their collective gene pool has been reduced
they no longer have the diversity within the species to survive changes in diseases that attack them
it’s the hardest part about bringing back a species from the edge of extinction
the pool of available genes is so reduced
in breeding causes deformations of a species, and susceptibility to disease
By rob on Oct 15, 2008
I have a friend that won two lotteries.
The first was for a million dollars (in the 70’s)
to her that was a miracle!
When she won the second it was not as miraculous for her having the previous experience.
She also like to take cruises. She will go on several in a given year. The cruise line she likes used to offer a draw for a cruise for any customer of the previous year. She has won that draw several times. If there’s a door prize at an event, she hates to enter for it, why?, because she usually wins it.
She beats the odds, continually. She doesn’t look at winning as “miraculous” as we would.
Is there something at work beyond the scope of testable science?
By rob on Oct 15, 2008
There is no theoretical model that explains how life happened. But there are plenty of plausible hypotheses. The issue is not primarily which is “possible” but which of those possible hypotheses actually happened.
Evolution is a THEORY there is no proof of species evolution (new species)
There is no disagreement that it actually happened.
There’s NO proof it did, i would LOVE to see any proof.
We are also well on our way to reproducing those conditions and outcomes in labratory conditions .
We have the famous Miller-Urey experiments which produced organic compounds from inorganic precusors.
Organic Compounds to life is a monumental jump.
Sidney Fox’s experiments which showed that peptide structures can spontaneously form and that amino acids could spontaneously form from those peptides which they natural form spherical membranes.
And scientists at Penn State are busily creating artificial cells:
artificial cells – no artificial life
Methane (previously thought to be an organic compound- fossil fuel)has been found on Titan (i’ll double check that)there is no evidence or even a theory of life ever being there.
So where does a fossil fuel come from?
but the question is does reasonable thought allow for miracles
you cannot prove or disprove supernatural based on the tools you have now
but you can see events that happen beyond what would be considered natural
so i think it’s reasonable to allow for miracles
By rob on Oct 15, 2008
your article states this
Although Keating and her colleagues plan to continue adding components to their model cell, they don’t expect to make a real cell. “We aren’t trying to generate life here. Rather, we want to understand the physical principles that govern biological systems,” said Keating. “For me the big picture is trying to understand how the staggering complexity observed in biological systems might have arisen from seemingly simple chemical and physical principles.”
it’s a very simple experimental model to understand the physics of fluid transportation in a cell
leaps and bounds away from understanding DNA transfer in life
By rob on Oct 15, 2008
“Well I’m sorry you are not aware of the evidence for black holes.” — I am aware, trust me. It does prove my point however that you can’t see it, so you use other evidence to prove it’s existence.
I have done the same.
“What is your reply to the miracles put forth in Presh’s comment?” — I think if there is even a remote possibility that they can be explained by natural phenomenon, then we should stick with that. I have never seen or experienced one that I could prove to you, so I don’t bother bringing it up at all. Any true miracle, by definition, would be impossible to prove and/or explain, so why bother?
By Norm on Oct 15, 2008
Sorry for getting off topic. I’m a member of other groups where people often are mistaken about scientific concepts.
Back on the topic of miracles:
The one thing that has been overlooked is the fact that there are only ever “good” miracles. Whether or not an event works for or against someone has nothing to do with its probability. Since this article establishes the “rationality” of miracles based on probability alone, then any event meeting such criteria would necessarily be classified as a miracle, even if it is bad for the person in question.
But no one ever does that. For instance:
Take a 6-shooter with five chambers filled. Put it to your head, pull the trigger and live. Miracle? Perhaps. If so, then it is also a miracle if you fill only one chamber, pull the trigger, and die. Same odds, the only difference is that one outcome is good and one is bad outcome is bad. If we are using mere probabilities to classify an event as a miracle then either both are, or both aren’t, miracles.
Since I think we can all agree that the only things ever classified as miracles are “good” things then either people aren’t using the logic consistently and are ignoring all the “bad” miracles that happen, or miracles do not have a rational basis as described.
By Scott on Oct 15, 2008
Noted, but miracles are supposed to be positive.
miracle
Noun
1. an event contrary to the laws of nature and attributed to a supernatural cause
2. any amazing and fortunate event: it’s a miracle that no-one was killed in the accident
3. a marvellous example of something: a miracle of organization [Latin mirari to wonder at]
but I take note of things that happen for bad too.
religious people may say it’s God’s wrath
some times when your number is up, it’s up
we have all heard examples of that
i also think it’s rational to consider bad things possible too that are super-natural
good points scott
By Rob on Oct 15, 2008
These comments are absolutely amazing. Some things I learned:
1. Our ER procedures of giving oxygen to dying patients is misguided–our cells die when we get oxygen back (thanks Scott.)
2. Prayer and healing is mixed. I had heard how prayer helped but didn’t know there were people spending over 20 million dollars and found that it didn’t work (thanks Hugo)
3. We should consider most events as naturally explained, and miracles, if we believe in them, would be rare (thanks Norm and Tomas for clarifying my post).
4. I didn’t know anyone won the lottery twice. That is amazing–wouldn’t you stop playing after the first one? (Thanks Rob)
By Presh Talwalkar on Oct 16, 2008
Here in Belgium there have been some double and even more than double lottery winners too, I don’t know if the lottery that rob talks about allows to increase the odds by paying more (the lotter here allows you to select 14 numbers instead of 7 for 20 or more times the price of a ticket)
Lottery is a gamble and people get hooked on it, winning it does not mean they will stop playing.
By Hugo on Oct 16, 2008
my friend bought one ticket (no picking numbers at that time) and won, she was 19
she actually had a different ticket but another guy in her office wanted hers because of the number so they switched … too funny
the second one was with a group of people (at work) for a smaller but still large amount, i think she got in the range of $10,000
all her cruises were worth more than 5000 and in the best cabins of the boat
she lives a simple but comfortable life, does lots of charity work
she married a cop (mountie) that was stationed in her small town
they were dating for two months before someone else told him she had won big
he didn’t believe them because she was not extravagant with her wealth
By rob on Oct 16, 2008
While I appreciate the intent here, the conclusion is tantamount to a tautology: “If one accepts the supernatural can exist, then it is logically consistent to be rational and believe in miracles.” This may indeed answer a question, but it is one far less difficult and interesting than the one originally posed.
By Andrew Rowland on Oct 17, 2008
Andrew Rowland: Sometimes we have to accept we can’t positively prove results.
I was reminded of this on a recent visit to Fermilab, home of the world’s second largest particle accelerator. Many discussions are of a theoretical nature and depend on logic. “If we accept the universe started as a ‘big bang,’ then what things might we expect?” Future experiments and measurements (like WMAP) can only disprove or not disprove the theory–they cannot positively prove. Ultimately one has to use Bayes Theorem and update beliefs accordingly.
Similarly, Collins is investigating his newfound religious belief and asking what logical problems there might be. He concludes that miracle-believing and rationality can coexist, but certainly he cannot prove his belief. Nonetheless, I find the exercise useful to show that miracles should be regarded as very, very rare events. A rational person must rule out other causes first (many people do not do this).
Also, thanks Hugo and Rob for sharing the lottery stories.
By Presh Talwalkar on Oct 23, 2008
Going back to the original question: “Can a rational person believe in miracles?”
Rational is synonymous with logical. An argument is considered logically sound if the following is true:
1. The argument is valid (that is, the premise necessarily entails the conclusion).
2. All the premises are true.
This article addresses only the first element. Establishing premises which necessarily entail the conclusion. On this point I find not fault with the analysis.
However, without establishing the second element, can we call adhering to such conclusions (miracles can happen) logical?
To answer this question, let us revist the scenario. Say the captive in the scenario is relating his story to you, and believes one of these doctored decks is responsible for saving this life, though he has no evidence he received a doctored deck and has no evidence that the creator of such decks exist.
Is he acting rational in doing so? I think the answer is no. While the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises it is not rational to assume the truth of the conclusion unless you can show the truth of the premises. In the case of the example it is not rational to believe you likely received a doctored deck unless you can show that there exists a person that created it. Likewise it is not rational to believe in miracles unless you can show that there is a supernatural agent that allows them to come about. As I have already addressed most people attempt to use miracles to establish the existence of this supernatural agent, but that just results in circular logic.
If you don’t think it is necessarily to show the truth of the premises in order to rationally assume the truth of the conclusion, then be prepared to accept the truth of all conclusions since given clever enough logic and the correctly chosen premises any conclusion can be determined.
By Scott on Oct 24, 2008
Yes, I would define a miracle as something like a 25-sigma event, although just one one side of the distribution (a negative, unlikely occurence I guess you can’t call “miracle”…)
But how do you work out the conditional probabilities and the distributions? Take the “miracle” of idols in temples in Wales here in Britain drinking milk about 14 years ago. A rational person might might need the probabilities of idols drinking non-milk products, idols drinking milk given that they have never drunk milk before etc…for a rational person to have these worked out through Bayes might be a miracle in itself…
By pratik on Oct 25, 2008
Scott:
Well said. I especially agree with this statement: “As I have already addressed most people attempt to use miracles to establish the existence of this supernatural agent, but that just results in circular logic.”
Pratik:
I suspect the best prior would be to consider natural causes which can be estimated by things like actuarial tables. Then see how much chance is leftover for real miracles. In the milk drinking miracle, something like capillary action would probably have a like high chance of being correct.
By Presh Talwalkar on Oct 28, 2008
in my religion are many miracle and some of them have a physical part too.This part is not really important, or at least is not important for itself.
there is one physical miracle which i have experienced and verified: the blessing of the water, I have seen the entire process, I took the water and that water is still clear and good to drink after more than 2 years, there are some other miracles with a obvious physical part you can see on Internet:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5Za9-uX4b8&feature=related (The miracle of the Snakes of the Theotokos which appear every year on the feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos on the Greek island Kephalonia), the holly light from Jerusalem, which happens every year at a certain date(“The miraculous appearance of the Holy Fire occurs every year on Holy Saturday in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the Old City of Jerusalem. Holy Saturday is the day before Orthodox Pascha, the celebration of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.”)(http://oode.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/miracleofholylight/), which is attested from at least 1000 years(recently some Russian scientists studied the event and the result is “absolute miracle”, they say:http://www.spc.rs/eng/Russian_physicist_first_register_electrical_discharges_during_descent_holy_fire), the reverse of the Jordan river, this can be experienced and can be seen by anybody who goes there (miracle takes place in the Holy River Jordan on the day before Epiphany Day, during the Blessing of the waters.)(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfmrqZwUjCQ) (it happens twice a year at precise moments), the cloud from the tabor mountain, also happening every year, there are also to be seen the holly relics of the saints, some saints have their body preserved entirely for centuries and even more (there are to many)(notice that their bodies were not artificially preserved, they were first buried and sometimes accidentally found after centuries)(“Holy relics are a clear anticipation of the transfigured body after universal resurrection. The very fact that the bodies of the saints are kept in a state of incorruptibility is a foretaste, an anticipation of their future incorruptibility after resurrection and after their full theosis, deification.”)(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bFKFrf0sHE&feature=PlayList&p=35882665C5368D97&index=1)
the citations are from youtube because i don’t speak English too good, there are many videos showing those miracles and others, but the best way is to ask yourself what a miracle, is, why god would do miracles, to study them, to see what is a false miracle and a false one, and if you want to see and touch with your one hands and souls, to go and experience the miracles, like apostle Toma. Sorry for my English
By corneliu on Dec 12, 2009