Comments on: Can a rational person believe in miracles?

By: corneliu

corneliu — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 20:45:58 +0000

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: Presh Talwalkar

Presh Talwalkar — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 09:54:53 +0000

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: pratik

pratik — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:18:15 +0000

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: Scott

Scott — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:30:30 +0000

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: Presh Talwalkar

Presh Talwalkar — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:48:33 +0000

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.