Miracles are currently unknowable
Traditionally, miracles are defined or understood as naturally impossible events, which are events inconsistent with the physical laws understood by any possible future state of science (e.g. science 800,000 + years from now). This raises an intriguing question: can we currently know if some event is probably naturally impossible? If so, then perhaps we have good grounds for believing that certain events (assuming they occurred) are probably miracles; but if not, then either the definition of "miracle" must be significantly loosened so as to be consistent with what's naturally possible (though this option has its difficulties), or we currently have no good grounds for believing that certain events are probably miracles. Consider:
1. We cannot properly infer from the fact that, if event e were inconsistent with the physical laws understood by current science (henceforth C), then e will probably be inconsistent with the physical laws understood by any possible future state of science (henceforth F). [premise]
2. If we cannot properly infer F from C, then we cannot properly infer F (because there's no other basis from which F can be inferred). [premise]
3. If we cannot properly infer F, then we cannot justifiably claim that e, if C, is probably naturally impossible (henceforth N). [premise]
4. Therefore, if e occurs, and C, we cannot justifiably claim N.
Long (convoluted) version:
1. We cannot properly infer from the fact that, if event e were inconsistent with the physical laws understood by current science, then e will probably be inconsistent with the physical laws understood by any possible future state of science (e.g. science 800,000 + years from now). [premise]
2. If we cannot properly infer that event e will probably be inconsistent with the physical laws understood by any possible future state of science from the fact that e is inconsistent with the physical laws understood by current science, then we cannot properly infer that e will probably be inconsistent with the physical laws understood by any possible future state of science (because there's no other basis from which the claim can be inferred). [premise]
3. If we cannot properly infer that e will probably be inconsistent with the physical laws understood by any possible future state of science, then we cannot justifiably claim that e -- if it were inconsistent with the physical laws understood by current science -- is probably naturally impossible. [premise]
4. Therefore, if e occurs, and it is inconsistent with the physical laws understood by current science, we cannot justifiably claim that e is probably naturally impossible.
1. We cannot properly infer from the fact that, if event e were inconsistent with the physical laws understood by current science (henceforth C), then e will probably be inconsistent with the physical laws understood by any possible future state of science (henceforth F). [premise]
2. If we cannot properly infer F from C, then we cannot properly infer F (because there's no other basis from which F can be inferred). [premise]
3. If we cannot properly infer F, then we cannot justifiably claim that e, if C, is probably naturally impossible (henceforth N). [premise]
4. Therefore, if e occurs, and C, we cannot justifiably claim N.
Long (convoluted) version:
1. We cannot properly infer from the fact that, if event e were inconsistent with the physical laws understood by current science, then e will probably be inconsistent with the physical laws understood by any possible future state of science (e.g. science 800,000 + years from now). [premise]
2. If we cannot properly infer that event e will probably be inconsistent with the physical laws understood by any possible future state of science from the fact that e is inconsistent with the physical laws understood by current science, then we cannot properly infer that e will probably be inconsistent with the physical laws understood by any possible future state of science (because there's no other basis from which the claim can be inferred). [premise]
3. If we cannot properly infer that e will probably be inconsistent with the physical laws understood by any possible future state of science, then we cannot justifiably claim that e -- if it were inconsistent with the physical laws understood by current science -- is probably naturally impossible. [premise]
4. Therefore, if e occurs, and it is inconsistent with the physical laws understood by current science, we cannot justifiably claim that e is probably naturally impossible.
6 comments:
“Traditionally, miracles are defined or understood as naturally impossible events, which are events inconsistent with the physical laws understood by any possible future state of science (e.g. science 800,000 + years from now). This raises an intriguing question: can we currently know if some event is probably naturally impossible? If so, then perhaps we have good grounds for believing that certain events (assuming they occurred) are probably miracles”
Oh gosh, you philosophical types kill me. No, you really do. Hear that sound? That’s me dying and you’re the cause.
No, I can’t, “currently know if some event is probably naturally impossible” 800ky in the future. What I can know is, what has all of the data revealed to date shown to be true. And what that says is, that with all probability, anything that could even remotely be considered as “miraculous” today will shown to be natural in 800ky from now.
Well, let’s work our way back. We are the center of the universe. Certainly, that’s miraculous! Hell we’re not the center of the universe, our own galaxy isn’t even the center of the universe and our own solar system isn’t even the center of the galaxy. And modern cosmology explains why no sentient being could be at the center of universe (inflation). O.K., how about Paley’s watchmaker? 150 years ago, an admirer of Paley showed he was wrong. 150 years of evidence later, including modern genetic theory has reinforced that biological entities don’t need a designer.
What about the argument from morality? Modern brain scans show morality to be inconsistent and based on electrochemical brain states.
So, let’s get down to brass tacks. The Catholic church was so sure that it was correct, that it made an evidence based claim about the miracles at Lourdes. The church said that it would only accept a miraculous claim if the methods of modern science could provide no “natural” explanation for them (the claim was made before modern statistics). So what has happened to “confirmed” miracles? They have dropped drastically as modern medical science has advanced.
What can you say about cosmological arguments? They have failed rapidly as astronomical science has advanced.
What can you say about moral arguments? They have failed rapidly as neurological science has advanced.
So, is it possible that 800ky in the future we’re wrong? Yes. But the data indicate that we won’t be any where even as remotely as wrong as those following data from 2000 years in the past! Based on the data we have to date, the likely conclusion 800 ky from now is, “Not only was Einstein wrong, but the god hypothesis was so not right, you can’t even call it wrong!”
Oh, and by the way, what warrent does anyone have for saying 800ky from now scientology will not shown to be true have. If it's different from mine, I'd be interested.
If I can't know something "supernatural" because 800 thousand years in the future it might be proven to be natural, then what "natural" thing can I know since it might be proven to be "supernatural" 800 thousand years later!
Please, enough of the a,c,e,y,n (or whatever letter of the alphabet you might use) arguments. You can get the point across a lot more easily without all that stuff.
I'm an agnostic, but if I were a Christian reading this argument, I would say it's nothing more than an excuse to fight tooth and nail and deny an obvious miracle. To simply say, "Well, way off in the distant future we'll find a natural explanation for this" definitely sounds like an excuse. We have a pretty damn understanding of the natural world. If a man rose from the dead, it's safe to say that we'll never discover some kind of natural reason to explain why he came back to life.
I may hold a somewhat odd position on miracles. I know some Christians disagree with me.
Although I firmly believe they happened as recorded in scripture, I do not insist they are happening now. In fact I strongly doubt it, and find the charlatans on television infuriating.
Notice that Jesus performed miracles and conferred this ability upon His apostles, who in turn passed it on to those whom they selected by laying on of hands. But there is no evidence that this ability was bestowed to a subsequent set of people. This seems to fulfill 1 Cor 13:8
I'm interested in hearing more about this friend of Paley's.
And now respectfully, I wish to differ with you on a few points.
Abiogenesis, inflation and a good chunk of cosmology are not evidentially confirmed, but remain highly speculative.
Astronomical (or any other physical evidence) cannot overcome cosmological arguments due to infinite causal regress, leaving us with an unavoidable step of theistic or materialistic faith. Personally, I think it shall remain so until the end.
Gape wrote:
------------
I'm an agnostic, but if I were a Christian reading this argument, I would say it's nothing more than an excuse to fight tooth and nail and deny an obvious miracle.
----------------
Perhaps you'd like to point to the specific premise you disagree with.
you wrote:
------------
To simply say, "Well, way off in the distant future we'll find a natural explanation for this" definitely sounds like an excuse.
--------------
Except this isn't what I'm saying at all.
you wrote:
------------
We have a pretty damn understanding of the natural world.
-------------
really? So we were have never been wrong before? Our science has always been perfect, has never needed fundamental revisions?
you wrote:
----------
If a man rose from the dead, it's safe to say that we'll never discover some kind of natural reason to explain why he came back to life.
------------
Safe based on what?
Post a Comment