Miracles and Personal Experience

MiraclesPhilosophy and God

BRENT SILBYUnlimited (UPT)

MiraclesAre miracles evidence for the existence of God?

The first argument:

1. Miracles occurTherefore2. God exists

What is a miracle?BRAIN STORM EXAMPLES…

But what about this…

Face on Mars(as photographed from the Viking Mars mission 1976)

Is this a miracle? Or evidenceof Life on Mars?

Face on Mars(As photographed in 1998)

Face on Mars

As humans, we are hardwired to find ‘faces’ in anything thatvaguely resembles a face. So maybe there’s another explanationfor the appearance of Jesus in the clouds. Maybe the randomcloud formation accidentally looks a bit like a person, andour imagination does the rest of the work.

What is a miracle?

1. An event produced by divine intervention

BUT, then the first argument is valid but trivial.That is to say that the conclusion is assumed in the premise.

Its like saying: 1. Trees have leaves,THEREFOREleaves exist.

What is a miracle?

2. A physically impossible event

BUT if an event occurs, then surely it is physically possible.

What is a miracle?

3. An event that violates the laws of nature as weunderstand them.

BUT, then what is a miracle at one time may at a latertime (after scientific progress) not be a miracle.

What is a miracle?

4. An event that has no natural cause.

Let’s use this to rewrite the argument.

The second argument

1. Events that have no natural cause do occur

2. The most convincing explanation of such events is thatthey caused by God.

THEREFORE3. Probably God exists

Premise 1: Events with no natural cause occur.

1. We cannot prove 1: we can only exclude some naturalcauses, not all.

OBJECTIONS:

2. We have more reason to think that all events havenatural causes than to trust reports of alleged miracles.

3. If an event is physically possible, it must fall under aNatural Law. It must have some natural cause.

BUT: there is a gap in reasoning here, what about counter-examples from quantum physics?

Reply: Quantum physics could operate according to Natural Laws, just not yet discovered.

Premise 2: The most convincing explanation is that such events are caused by God.OBJECTIONS:

1. If God has foreknowledge, what need for intervention?

BUT perhaps God cannot foretell the future.

2. If God is omnipotent and benevolent, how can Godallow situations requiring a miracle?

3. Why assume that an event with no known natural cause must have a non-natural cause (and that that cause is God)?

David Hume’s (1711-1776) view on miraclesAn event should only be considered a miracle if it wouldhave been more miraculous for the event to not have been a miracle.

In other words, what is most likely?1) The event was a true miracle, or2) Someone is trying to trick us, or perhaps made a mistake and misinterpreted the event.

If the second option is the best answer to the question, then theevent cannot be classified as a miracle.

Some reasons why people assume that an event with no known natural cause must have a non-natural cause (and that that cause is God)?

- follows prayer/religious prophecy (could be coincidence)- Is the sort of event a divine being would have performed in

that context- favors the good/religious- Is accompanied by a ‘message’ or manifestation- Has a ‘moral’- Meets some human need

So, the argument from Miracles fails.

But what about other experiences of God?

The Argument from ExperienceThe First Argument

1. I have experience of GodTHEREFORE2. God exists

PROBLEM

It’s the same as saying:1. I have an experience and God is what I am experiencingTHEREFORE2. God exist

This argument assumes what it is trying to prove.The question we need to ask is: what reason do we have to think that 1 is true, i.e that God is what I am experiencing.

Which line is longer?How do you know?

They are the same length. Sometimesexperience doesn’t show us what isreally the case.

The first argument (revised)

1. I have experiences which I describe as ‘experiences of God’.2. There is a check which will identify those experiences which

are experiences of God.

3. By checking my experiences, I know that they are experiencesof God.

THEREFORE4. God exists

Problem with the revised first argument

What checks are available?

1) Similarity to other people’s experiences: If my experience issimilar to other people’s experience of God, then my experience is an experience of God.

BUT:Although other people may describe their experiences as‘experience of God’, what check is there to show that these areexperiences of God?

Problem with the revised first argument

What checks are available?

2) The peculiar quality of the experience: if my experience doesn’thave anything in common with the rest of my life, then myexperience is an experience of God.

BUT:

No matter how unusual an experience is, the only way I cansay it is an experience of God is if I have independentconfirmation of the link between God and my experience.

We can never have such independent knowledge.

Problem with the revised first argument

What checks are available?

3) The practical consequences of the experience: if myexperience is life-changing (particularly if it changes my lifefor the better), then my experience is an experience of God.

BUT:This shows only that the experience is powerful. It does notshow that it is an experience of God.

Problem with the revised first argument

What checks are available?

4) Petitionary Prayer: I pray for advice, it seems to me that Godtells me to take one particular course of action; I do this andthe results are highly beneficial. This shows that myexperience was an experience of God.

BUT:there are other explanations for what is going on here.

e.g. coincidence.

ALSO: It doesn’t always work, so must be just coincidence.People forget about the hundreds of times that prayer fails.

The Second Argument

1. I have experiences which I describe as ‘experiences of God’

2. There must be a cause of these experiences.

3. The most convincing explanation is that these experiences arecaused by God.

THEREFORE4. It is probable that God exists

Problem with the second argument

There is at least one other equally convincing explanation thataccounts for religious experience by reference to diverse human needs.

So 3 is false

Examples of other explanations…Religion as Proto-ScienceDo not yet have scientific explanation for experience as in the past when people used gods to explain events such as volcanic eruptions.

Religion as Social ControlReligion used to keep people under control. Threaten that crops will fail if peopledo not work hard. Threaten that people will go to hell. Hard working peoplewill go to heaven.

Religion as psychological ‘self-help’Separation anxiety when infant removed from mother. Transitional objects like teddy bears help, but the separation anxiety is never resolved. It recurs in stressful situations. Religion is available to fill the gap.

REPLY:This is a more complicated explanation of my experiences thanthe explanation that they are caused by God. We should takethe simpler explanation.

BUT: 1) The God explanation is also highly complicated

2) The different parts of the alternative explanation arebased on good evidence. This is not true of the Godexplanation (there is no evidence to support Godexplanation)

We want our beliefs to be rational. But are rational beliefs possible?

RATIONAL BELIEFS* Beliefs that are supported by evidence* Beliefs that are self-evident (for example x=x, 2+2=4)

True just because of the meanings of the words.

Religion isn’t rational, but does that make it irrational?What about the following list. Are these rational or irrational?

Are these rational beliefs?

1. The room continues to exist when no-one is observing it.2. Human beings (other than myself) have minds3. The sun will rise tomorrow4. Blue looks Blue to everyone5. I have arms, legs, body, and exist in a physical world

Powerpoint by BRENT SILBY

Produced at UPTChristchurch, New Zealand

www.unlimited.school.nz