One of the issues that often comes up is whether there is any evidence for God. Miracles are the most common and direct form of evidence requested in both modern and ancient times. Definitions of a miracle can vary but the one provided by Macmillan dictionary seems most in tune with the philosophical model. “an event that cannot be explained according to the laws of nature and is considered to be an act of God”
In modern times many agnostics and atheists ask for miracles as proof or evidence. Whether it’s N.R.Hanson’s having God appear after a thunder-clap causing everyone in the world to fall to their knees before the heavens open and a giant radiant Zeus like figure appears and “exclaims for every man woman and child to hear ‘I have had quite enough of your too-clever logic-chopping and word-watching in matters of theology. Be assured, N. R. Hanson, that I do most certainly exist’” Then there is the common notion that God could rearrange the stars to spell something like “I exist” to those who question. Although there will always be some holdouts[i], most atheists are willing to agree that such miracles would be fairly compelling evidence of God.
The author of the Gospel of John explains why he records the signs (miracles)
“Jesus performed many other signs [miracles] in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” John 20:30
But the hope for miracles dates even earlier. The ancients thought along the same lines as we read in Isaiah. He wished God would show himself by rending the heavens and coming down and do awesome things so that people would believe in him and turn from their sin. But because he has “hidden [his] face” people continue to sin. [ii] I will just say that I find it interesting that it appears throughout time some humans have expected/hoped that God would reveal himself through miracles. Some issues seem new but you can often find they have been asked before.
Is there historical evidence of miracles? Years ago I listened to Bart Ehrlman’s lectures entitled “Historical Jesus.” He repeats several times that in determining what historically happened one must use criteria.. The criteria he proposes are more or less these:
1) Multiple sources
2) Preferably Independent sources
3) Non biased sources
4) Contextual credibility
5) Close in time to the events
6) No contradictions/internally consistent
So far so good. He goes through 17 lectures explaining, using, and emphasizing the importance of these criteria. Then in lecture 18 he addresses miracles. Needless to say I was somewhat excited to hear how they would hold up under historical criteria.
Unfortunately he then launches into some confused and contradictory explanations which I will quote at length below. But at the outset I want to say that I do not intend to bash Professor Ehrman here. I learned a lot about the historical Jesus from listening to his lectures and books. And I greatly appreciate his work and his ability to introduce and explain many of the issues in this very interesting field. I don’t agree with everything he says but I learned a great deal from him and think he is an excellent author and professor.
Before I quote him I want to point out how he uses 2 different definitions of the word “miracle.” 1) an event that violates the law of nature. And 2) and improbable or rare event. But it’s important at the outset to know these are two very different definitions. We might say the Yankees winning in the ninth inning was a miracle comeback. But we don’t really mean any laws of nature were violated.
In the same token several Christians believe a miracle happens at communion when the bread becomes Christ’s body and blood. This is literally confirmed by hundreds of thousands of believers every day at Catholic Masses. So according to them at least, it’s an event that violates the laws of nature, but it’s not exactly rare or improbable.
Consider that there are two meanings for the word duck. One is a bird that likes water and the other is to bow down in order to dodge something. These are also two very different concepts that happen to share the same word. If I were to say a duck is a bird that likes water and often bows down to avoid attacks that would be conflating the two meanings. People would be right to point out that I am misunderstanding the terms. You will see that is what Bart Ehrman does.
I will try to transcribe exactly what he says. However, the parts in brackets and blue are are my own comments. He says:
The reports of Jesus’s miracles create a special problem for historians who are committed to establishing to the best of their abilities what probably happened in the past. On the one hand the miracles of Jesus are virtually ubiquitous in our gospel traditions. [traditions which Ehrman believed were sufficient to establish historical facts] Nearly everywhere you turn Jesus is healing the sick, casting out the demons, raising the dead, multiplying the loaves, walking on the water and so on. These traditions infiltrate our gospel traditions.
Some people since the enlightenment in Europe have insisted that such miracles cannot happen. For people like this, since miracles don’t happen, Jesus necessarily did not do miracles. This view can be called the “philosophical problem of miracle” I want to state emphatically that this is not the issue that I want to address in this lecture. I am not dealing with the philosophical problem of whether miracles are possible. That’s not what I want to deal with. For the sake of the argument I am willing to concede that miracles can and do happen. For the sake of the argument Ill concede that they happen.
But there still remains a huge and I’d say insurmountable problem when discussing Jesus’s miracles. Even if miracles are possible, there is no way for the historian to show that they ever happened. I’m going to call this the historical problem of miracle. As opposed to the philosophical problem. Let me explain the historical problem of miracle at some length.
One way to approach the question is by reflecting for a moment on the ways in which historians engage in their craft in contrast say to the ways scientists engage in theirs. The natural sciences operate through repeated experimentation as they seek to establish predictive probabilities based on past occurrences. To illustrate on just the most simple level suppose I wanted to demonstrate that a bar of iron will sink in a tub of lukewarm water but a bar of ivory soap will float. I could prove my thesis simply by repeated experimentation with tubs of water and with bars of both iron and soap. Line up the tubs with water and the bars of iron will sink every time and the bars of ivory soap will float every time and this would provide an extremely high level of what we might call presumptive probability. Namely that if I keep repeating the same experiment I’m going to keep getting the same results so that we can predict that in the future that is probably what is going to happen. This is what natural science does it makes predictions about what is going to happen based on repeated experimentation of what already has happened.
In common parlance a miracle within this schema would involve a violation of this known working of nature. It would be a miracle for example if a preacher prayed over a bar of iron and chucked it into a vat of lukewarm of water and it floated. We would call that a miracle.
The historical disciplines are not like the natural sciences, in part, because they are concerned with establishing what has happened in the past as opposed to predicting what will happen in the future and in part because the historical disciplines cannot operate through repeated experimentation. An occurrence is a one-time proposition once it happened; it is over and done with.
Since historians cannot repeat the past in order to establish what probably happened there will always be less certainty than there would be in the natural sciences where you can actually demonstrate things through repeated experimentation. It’s much harder to convince people that John F Kennedy was the victim of a lone assassin than it is to convince them that a piece of ivory soap will float. Because you can repeat one but you can’t repeat the other.
And the farther back you go in history the harder it is to mount a convincing case. It’s one thing to mount a convincing case of an event that happened in 1963 where you actually have video. But to try to convince somebody of what happened in 63 is extremely difficult. You can not only not repeat it, but the sources available to you are highly problematic. This all though is what makes alleged miracles so hard for historians, so difficult, in fact why they pose an insurmountable difficulty for historians. [But this seems to have nothing to do with something being a miracle, there are ancient and modern alleged miracles. Clearly he so far has only described a problem that all of history has and especially ancient history.]
On one level of course, everything that happens, that happens at all is improbable but most things that happen are not so unlikely as to defy the imagination. [Earlier he claimed he would concede miracles do happen, it seems he is now reneging.] Because they happen more or less all the time. If you five years ago had tried to calculate the probability of your sitting right now where you’re sitting. I think probably it would be a remote probability five years ago but there is nothing improbable about the fact itself I mean you have to be sitting somewhere if though five years ago you tried to predict the probability of our right now levitating 20 feet in the air, well how would you even calculate the probability of that since you don’t levitate. [But I thought he said “For the sake of the argument I am willing to concede that miracles can and do happen.” he seems to be reneging] You see both are improbable but the improbability of you levitating at this point is so infinitesimally remote that you can’t even calculate it. [I’m not sure I could calculate the probability that I would be sitting here five years before either, he just seems to want to say that he thinks miracles are improbable so regardless of the historical analysis he is always going to give them the thumbs down] Events that don’t happen all the time defy probabilities. [But as he said himself all events from history only happen once. Plus he clearly is just claiming they don’t happen all the time what about the eucharist?.] That’s why miracles create an inescapable dilemma for historians.
Let me put it like this since historians can only establish what probably did happened in the past and the chances of a miracle happening by definition are infinitesimally remote a miracle can never be the most probable occurrence. [Notice this is a different definition of miracle than what he said earlier. Earlier he was using the definition of a violation of the laws of nature. That definition is what christian’s should properly understand miracles to be. Now he has switched to a completely different definition that describes a completely different concept.] That means historians can never show by the very nature of the case given the constraints imposed by them by the historical methods that miracles probably happened. [Why not apply the historical method/criteria he claimed to use? Answer: he has philosophical reasons to reject miracles.] This is not a problem for only one kind of historian, for example for atheist for agnostics or Buddhists or Roman Catholics or Baptists or Jews or Muslims it’s a problem for all historians of every stripe. Even if there are otherwise good sources for a miraculous event the very nature of the historical discipline prevents the historian from arguing for its probability by their very nature miracles are the least probable occurrence in any given instance. [Clearly he is deciding this using something other than the historical criteria he set out and claimed to use. If it is not the use of his historical criteria then what is the grounds for saying they are so unlikely? It seems that, although he denies it, he is in fact letting his philosophical views simply trump his historical methodology. Sadly his philosophical views are both not well supported and caused by a conflation of two completely different meanings of the word miracle. ]
He offers some very confused thoughts and no longer wants to apply the same historical criteria he applies to other events. It is obvious to anyone looking that issue that we can in fact take the miracle events described in the gospels and apply the historical criteria just like we can to any non – miraculous event.
He offers nothing specific as to why any of the 6 historical criteria themselves would not work to evaluate historic miracle claims. So at the outset I see no reason why his normal criteria for historical analysis cannot be employed. Sadly he does not address any of these criteria or attempt to show why they don’t work with miracles. It seems very much to be a situation of special pleading.
Ok lets move on to what he does say. He claims he is not referring to a philosophical problem, but instead a “historical problem of miracle.” Given that he never mentions any problems with applying the historical criteria to these events, it seems a strange claim. Despite his claim to the contrary the “miracle problem” he refers to seems to be very much a philosophical misgiving. It is a conflation of 2 distinct definitions of miracle, and a confusion over predicting probabilities in the future or the past.
It’s unclear to me whether his disparate thoughts are intended to mount several different arguments as to why normal methodology of a historian can’t be used. Or if he thinks they support one global argument. That said lets go through some of his points:
Why does he mention scientific method and how it’s distinct from the methods of the historian in the context of miracles only? Clearly that distinction applies equally well to all sorts of historical evaluations and not just to miracles. It seems he agrees history is not science regardless of whether we are discussing claimed miraculous events or non-miraculous events. So why raise this distinction in this context? He seems to be going adrift.
He indicates that it is harder to prove something that happened farther in the past with problematic sources than it is to prove something closer to the present when we have video tape. I don’t disagree with that. But this is true of all history and has nothing to do with the event being a possible miracle or not. So again he seems to be going adrift when he brings this up in the context of why miracles can’t be examined with historical analysis.
He goes on to offer even more confused thinking:
“Another way to look at this problem is to point out ways that the historical disciplines are like the natural sciences. Both Historical and natural disciplines deal with phenomena that can be observed by all interested parties apart from their ideological or religious beliefs. The historian can only look at evidence in other words that is available in the public record. As a historian the person who is a historian has no access to supernatural forces. Only to events that can be observed and interpreted by any reasonable person of whatever religious persuasion.
If a miracle requires belief in the supernatural realm but historians as historians have access only to the natural realm then they can never even discuss the probabilities of a miracle because it requires belief in the supernatural. Let me emphasize that historians don’t have to deny the possibility of miracles or deny that miracles happen. I’m not saying that.”
A miracle does not require anyone to believe in the supernatural. It is a supernatural occurrence but the possibility of it happening is not dependent on our subjective beliefs. It happened or it didn’t, regardless of whether we believe it happened. Some miracles are better supported by historical criteria than others. It’s difficult to know what he could mean when he says:
“If a miracle requires belief in the supernatural realm but historians as historians have access only to the natural realm then they can never even discuss the probabilities of a miracle because it requires belief in the supernatural.”
What is he talking about? Discussing the probability of miracles does not require belief in the supernatural. Lots of people who do not believe in the supernatural assign a probability to miracles. Often these probabilities are low but very few people who do not believe in the supernatural claim there is absolutely no chance they are wrong. But even if they do assign a zero probability they are assigning a probability.
What does he mean accessing the supernatural realm? Miracles are supernatural events that happen in this realm. People who believe the miracles as recorded in the bible do not think they happened in some other “realm.” He is begging the question when he says Historians as historians cannot access the supernatural. They can access them the same way they access non-miraculous events. By looking at their sources and using their historical criteria.
When we examine the reasons for his claims, they do indeed make it clear that his issues with miracles are only philosophical ones. I think his comments about how often miracles are recorded and from how many different sources makes it clear that if he used actual historical analysis he would find they are historically supported. It’s just too bad that his philosophical views are so confused that he doesn’t even realize they are in fact philosophical, and have nothing to do with historical analysis.
[i] For example Matt McCormick is an atheist philosophy teacher who apparently does not consider miracles to be evidence of God.
[ii] “Why, O LORD, do you make us wander from your ways and harden our hearts so we do not revere you? Return for the sake of your servants, the tribes that are your inheritance. For a little while your people possessed your holy place, but now our enemies have trampled down your sanctuary. We are yours from of old; but you have not ruled over them, they have not been called by your name.
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down, that the mountains would tremble before you! As when fire sets twigs ablaze and causes water to boil, come down to make your name known to your enemies and cause the nations to quake before you! For when you did awesome things that we did not expect, you came down, and the mountains trembled before you. Since ancient times no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen any God besides you, who acts on behalf of those who wait for him. You come to the help of those who gladly do right, who remember your ways. But when we continued to sin against them, you were angry. How then can we be saved? All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away. No one calls on your name or strives to lay hold of you; for you have hidden your face from us and made us waste away because of our sins.” Isaiah 63-64
True and Reasonable 
One of the issues that often comes up is whether there is any evidence for God.
Before I continue reading this lengthy piece, which god are you talking about?
Generally miracles can come up as a form of evidence for different Gods.
But since this lecture deals with the new testament we are dealing with the Christian God here. And the miracles would be evidence that Christ really does speak for God.
I don’t believe in gods as you are aware and so far, there has been no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate the veracity of your god.
Do you think miracles can be evidence of God?
So for example if someone said they will be killed and then on the third day rise from the dead by God’s power. Then that happens would that be evidence of God for you?
But there is no evidence that this happened so why speculate?
As I have said – and it is becoming tiresome to repeat it so often – if you wish to demonstrate your point please, it is only fair that you first demonstrate the veracity of your god.
Otherwise as they say…all bets are off – and this is simply an attempt at you trying to play at oneupmanship.
You believe whole hardheartedly in your god, so therefore one would expect you would have evidence to demonstrate that you are not simply relying on some erroneous fallacious circa 2000 year old texts and blind faith.
I think the new testament accounts are in fact historical evidence of miracles.
I am trying to understand your position that is why I am asking questions. I will number my questions so you can answer easily.
1) Are you saying there is no evidence that any miracles happened?
2) Do you think the accounts in the new testament are evidence of anything?
3) So for example do you think the accounts in the new testament are evidence that a man who we call Jesus did a water ceremony with a man who we call John?
4) If you admit we have evidence of the latter, then why do you say these same accounts are not evidence of miracles?
I think the new testament accounts are in fact historical evidence of miracles.
I am trying to understand your position that is why I am asking questions. I will number my questions so you can answer easily.
1) Are you saying there is no evidence that any miracles happened?
Yes. This is what I am saying. There is no verifiable evidence for miracles. Past or present.
Example: Why should I accept New Testament miracle claims when the world recognises that Old Testament miracle claims are nothing but fantasy/fiction. Parting of the Red Sea, etc etc.
2) Do you think the accounts in the new testament are evidence of anything?
Evidence? Geographic references ; places and towns etc and the odd mention of historical people. Pilate, for example . Otherwise, the New Testament is almost all fiction. A series of nonsense events told over a Palestinian Pastiche. If you are aware of the findings of the Acts seminar this is further evidence of make believe.
3) So for example do you think the accounts in the New Testament are evidence that a man who we call Jesus did a water ceremony with a man who we call John?
No. Everything pertaining to the character of Jesus is pretty much hearsay. Take it or leave in other words. Even if the account is true you surely cannot believe that there was a voice from heaven rabbiting on about how pleased Yahweh is with his kid. Well I sincerely hope you are mature enough to regard this as nonsense?
I have always found this whole John Baptist business odd. They are supposed to be cousins, yet he when he’s in the nick he sends one of his own disciples to check pout Jesus and ask if he’s the one. Yet he baptized him! Seriously, the more one reads the bible and studies it, the more one is drawn to the inevitable conclusion it is a fictitious story put together for the sole purpose of relgio/political ends. Truly, it is a very silly ‘book’.
4) If you admit we have evidence of the latter, then why do you say these same accounts are not evidence of miracles?
See above.
As for miracles. If you expect me to accept biblical miracles then I assume you accept miracle claims from ancient Islamic texts’ not least that the Koran was delivered to Mohammed via Gabriel and also later day miracle claims – especially from other eastern religions – and you can provide evidence of their validity, yes?
I responded at the bottom of the comment section.
Thanks for announcing your status as a preening, pseudo-intellectual, GNU-Reditt obsessed, Hitchens-Dawkins parroting, basement dwelling douche. I ‘m glad we could clear that up ‘before I continue reading ‘ the steaming pile of word salad you regurgitated further down.
Always nice to read a true intellectual’s comment.
With all those polysyllables you must have spent the best part of the afternoon paging through a thesaurus.
Well done. 7/10 for effort.
Hey Trueandreasonable,
I agree that it was not entirely clear what Ehrman’s problem was in this commentary. I don’t have any qualms defining miracles as extremely improbable events, actually this jives with the Macmillan dictionary since the “laws of nature” are really what is probable by repeated experiment.
Even if miracles are improbable events they can be the most probable explanation of historical data.
Ehrman seems to want to say that the improbability with miracles cancels out their probability by historical method. But, I’m unclear as to how he got there. It’s not necessarily supernaturalism either which is a frequent go-to in debates I’ve noticed. Somewhere in one’s worldview one would have to judge that miracles are so improbable that any evidence short of witnessing it for oneself would be insufficient to overcome its improbability. One could even go further and say that witnessing a miracle would necessarily be a hallucination.
Bringing up Matt McCormick was a great point. We have an astonishing ability to construct worldviews as humans!
Anyway, good post!
anaivethinker
Thanks for posting here. I appreciate your comments here and on other blogs where I read them.
” I don’t have any qualms defining miracles as extremely improbable events, actually this jives with the Macmillan dictionary since the “laws of nature” are really what is probable by repeated experiment.”
I think its important to at least understand we are dealing with 2 different concepts. I do not think natural laws are what is probable by repeated experiment. I think natural laws are how the world/universe works unless something non-natural or supernatural happens. We use repeated experiments to help us determine what those laws are. This works based on an assumption that natural laws will work in similar ways each time they are invoked. Its not a bad assumption, its a good one. Its how we get science. But it is an assumption. If a supernatural power continued to repeatedly work a miracle in the world – that is use a supernatural power that would not make that supernatural working become a natural law.
But trying to say a miracle is 1) a supernatural event that is 2)also improbable, is problematic.
“Even if miracles are improbable events they can be the most probable explanation of historical data.”
Can they be? I mean if a miracle is defined an improbable event then by definition if an event probably happened it would not be a miracle. Would it? I think that is what is leading to Dr. Ehrman’s confusion.
There may be some distinctions between prior probabilities and posterior probabilities (see the blog I reference below) but I don’t think that entirely resolves the issue.
Lets say you were one of Jesus’s disciples and he in fact performed numerous supernatural healings of lepers in front of your eyes. He then said next, I am going to heal this leper. Now before he heals him are you going to say – “heh that’s unlikely!” Amusingly it seems many of the disciples did just that. But eventually even they came around to understand that if Jesus intended to do something supernatural it was probably going to happen.
Are we going to say that after Jesus used supernatural powers to heal 5 or 6 people then everyone he healed after that using supernatural powers did not involve a miracle, because then it was no longer “improbable”?
My point is that if something is a supernatural act involving God then it sufficiently qualifies as a miracle. The further condition of being “improbable” seems to add nothing but confusion and inaccuracy to our understanding.
That said it sure we can use the definition of improbable in the completely different definition of miracle. Like if a team makes a miracle comeback. We are not really claiming something supernatural happened but rather that before they made the comeback it appeared the team would almost certainly lose. But I don’t think the two definitions should be conflated.
“Ehrman seems to want to say that the improbability with miracles cancels out their probability by historical method.”
I am not sure that is what he is saying. But it might be. He seems to go back and forth between saying he will accept miracles happen which means they have a probability of 100% to saying they are so improbable that they their likelihood is “infinitesimally remote.” Why does he think that? He doesn’t give any historical analysis to suggest that. He claims it is not based on some philosophical argument. It seems to be he is just getting mixed up on the definitions.
I quoted this blog in my original post but it addresses the issue with Ehrman conflating prior probabilities with posterior probabilities.
http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2006/12/bart-ehrman-on-history-and-miracles.html
I actually joined Dr. Ehrman’s blog to ask him more questions on what he is getting at. And have found some new arguments he is making in this regard. The new arguments seem to be worse than these. But I still want to explore where he is coming from a bit more (assuming he will reveal more where he is coming from) before I comment on that.
Hey trueandreasonable,
I can see we both definitely share our confusion over Ehrman’s point! I think we might have a slight difference on some things. I’m wondering if you wouldn’t mind if I tease them out a bit.
I think your position on nature and supernature are concepts which are unnecessary, vague, unbiblical, and unhelpful to put it all bluntly. They are unnecessary because we can conceive of reality without supernature, whereby miracles are God’s natural power to do things like call into existence things that did not previously exist and rearrange existing atoms. They are vague because one arbitrarily sets the bar as to what is “natural” and what is “supernatural”. You have to label things as natural which ultimately means ends up being “what will probably happen” because thinking that natural laws exist is a philosophical assumption (i.e., label) as you point out. These concepts are unbiblical meaning that the word “supernatural” cannot be found in scripture. And, lastly these concepts are unhelpful because they have been usurped by our culture into covering all sorts of weird things like vampires and unicorns. Why waste time defending an unbiblical philosophical position when there is such confusion out there about Christianity that already demands this attention?
Just some naive thinking, my friend. 🙂
Thanks for your comments. Sorry I have not been on the blog for a while so I am slow getting back.
I think this is well worth our time and mental energy to get a handle on what we mean by miracle. So I agree we should explore this.
Let me go through each of your concerns: Is it unnecessary to think in terms of natural and supernatural? You say we can “conceive” of reality without this distinction. First that might be the case. Hume did, and naturalists do as well. But I am not sure we can be Christian and deny anything supernatural. God seems to be supernatural.
Let me explain it this way. Characters in a book might be able to do certain things. If it is a science fiction or fantasy book they might be able to do supernatural things. But like you say, in something like Tolkien’s world he created in lord of the rings the ability of a wizard might be understood as supernatural or just natural according to that world.
But Tolkien as the author would have IMO sort of a supernatural power. He could just write things in that violate laws that were supposed to govern that world. That is How I see God. God created this world and the laws governing it. So he is not bound by the rules that govern it. Now you might take a step back and say what tolkein is doing is natural. Likewise you can take a step back and say what God did is natural. But you are taking a step back. This is what we mean between the natural and supernatural. We are dealing with a different set of laws that constrain the actors.
Whether we say the powers of demons or Angels are supernatural or not can go either way. Maybe angels are like the wizards in Tolkien’s world. That is not the issue with miracles. Miracles come from God the author.
Can we say nothing is supernatural? I am not sure. I mean if you say God is just a natural thing that might be problematic. But why do that. This understanding of natural laws is a helpful one to help us more clearly put our finger on what a miracle is. Science used to be called “natural philosophy.” Natural philosophy tries to find those natural laws. It really doesn’t take a position on whether those laws can be violated.
You say:
“They are vague because one arbitrarily sets the bar as to what is “natural” and what is “supernatural”. You have to label things as natural which ultimately means ends up being “what will probably happen” because thinking that natural laws exist is a philosophical assumption (i.e., label) as you point out.”
Your last sentence is a non sequitur. Just because I think natural laws exist as a philosophical assumption does not mean I need to say that natural law means “what will probably happen.”
I actually reject that notion. I gave examples in my last post where Jesus heals several lepers through supernatural means and says he will heal another one. I think his action will be supernatural even though given his ability to do it in the past I think it is probable that it will happen.
I reject your notion that natural law is what is “most probable.” It might or might not be depending on the circumstances. Natural law is how things work here unless some supernatural force like God acts against those laws. I do not presume a probability of that happening at the outset.
You say:
“These concepts are unbiblical meaning that the word “supernatural” cannot be found in scripture.”
The word “trinity” is not found in the bible. the word “Bible” is not found in the bible. Nor is the term “unbiblical.” If we want to say we can only use the words that are in the bible or we are “unbiblical” then your charge is itself “unbiblical.” Also we would have to only speak Greek.
We have to gather what the authors of the bible are trying to convey. When we do that we will see your idea that the miracles are improbable are unbiblical. The authors did not think that what we call miracles “probably” did not happen. They are telling us they did happen so that we might believe. Believe what? Believe that Jesus was God or at least sent by God. Why? Because Jesus did things that no other man could do without resorting to a supernatural power. They were signs pointing to Jesus being God.
I know people who had allot of improbable things happen to him. But Mathew Mark Luke and John aren’t saying well then that person is the messiah. Winning the Lottery is not a sign you are from God. Demonstrating a power beyond what natural laws allows is a sign you are from God. Because you are exercising powers that only God has. We use the term supernatural power but you can also just call it God-power. That’s fine too. But even if you do this so often that people all agree you probably did it does not make it any less of a sign you are from God. In fact it makes it more likely.
I would like it if you would address the problems I have mentioned with including improbable in the definition of miracles. It seems to me that doing that simply exposes a bias against a core Christian belief. So for example:
1) to be a Christian you must believe in the resurrection
2) The resurrection is a miracle
3) all miracles are improbable
4) A past event is improbable if it probably didn’t happen
5) The resurrection is an event that is claimed to have happened in the past
6) Therefore the resurrection probably didn’t happen.
7) Therefore Christian belief is probably false.
I think if you were to ask any of the authors of the new testament think we should say what we commonly call miracles as things that probably didn’t happen they would disagree and disagree strongly. They are telling us these event in fact happened. They are saying the probability is 100% and therefore we should believe that Christ was from God.
“And, lastly these concepts are unhelpful because they have been usurped by our culture into covering all sorts of weird things like vampires and unicorns.”
Well I am not sure this makes the distinction between the laws of nature and things that supersede it unhelpful. But I do agree with your general point. These other notions have sort of usurped the general idea of “supernatural.”
It would be nice if our vocabulary had a word for “God-power” But it doesn’t. I agree my saying I believe in the “supernatural” might make me look silly to some people who don’t understand what I mean. Eh, I guess I can only explain what I mean and let people draw their own conclusions. If people want to believe that natural laws can never possibly be broken that is fine. But I see absolutely no logical reason to believe that. If you want to say my acceptance of the possibility that natural laws can be broken means I believe in the supernatural then I am ok with that. If you want to call it something else because the term supernatural is now associated with things that are made up that’s fine too.
In sum I think using the supernatural versus natural analysis is biblical, not overly vague, and helpful. Although I do agree the word “supernatural” does have undesirable associations and I wish there was a better word to use. I am just not sure there is.
However, I do feel strongly that defining the miracles that Mathew Mark Luke and John refer to as “improbable” is simply bias against Christian beliefs. To the extent you want to include improbability in your definition, I would like to see how you work through the problems I set forth in this post and my last post.
Ark thank you for taking the time to answer the questions I put to you. Let me give you some of my thoughts on your answers. I couldn’t figure out how to alternate colors for each of our quotes but hopefully this will be readable.
I said and asked this:
You answered:
Well the historical criteria of closeness in time as well as a few others are not as strong for the old testament accounts as they are for the new testament accounts. So for example who was it that recorded what happened with Adam and Eve? How long was the story of the parting of the red sea passed along before our first written accounts?
There are no easy answers that allow us to sort history into probable or not probable. This is just a fact of life. We need to think things through for ourselves.
I asked:
You answered:
Is the acts seminar an extension of the Jesus seminar? If so there are considerable problems with their methodology which has been well criticized in publications and the internet. I am not sure I have allot to add.
You believe very little in the gospels is true I take it.
I asked:
You answered
Well pretty much all of history is hearsay in a legal sense. So if you want to refuse to believe anything that is hearsay you won’t believe much history.
The account of Christ’s baptism by John happens to be an event that is considered historical by all but the minority groups that think Jesus never even existed. Are you taking that position? If so and you are true to your standards you won’t believe much ancient history.
You further said:
On the one hand you complain that we have no evidence of God. But then there are accounts of God acting in the world and you say that is just “nonsense.” What sort of evidence of God do you want if not miracles? Are you asking for evidence knowing very well that nothing could possibly qualify as evidence for you?
I would add that your accusation that believing its possible natural laws could be broken is just “nonsense” is a form of propaganda, but it’s not a logical or reasonable approach. These sorts of statements are intended to make people feel afraid they will be ridiculed for their beliefs – and thus plays on emotions instead of logic and reason. The notion that women should be able to vote was often called “nonsense.” Luckily just because someone called and idea “nonsense” is not a reason for a rational person to reject a view. Many people in the new atheist movement seem not to understand this as they try to ridicule and bully religious people. This is why they fail to understand why few thinking people take them seriously.
If you want to be taken seriously try to come up with reasons for your view that it is impossible that a natural law can be broken. Hume did something like that. And although I disagree with him, I respect him and take his views seriously.
Finally I have found that often the most “mature” people take religious views more to heart than younger people. As I get older I tend to realize that the world isn’t exactly as clear cut as I once understood it to be.
“I have always found this whole John Baptist business odd. They are supposed to be cousins, yet he when he’s in the nick he sends one of his own disciples to check pout Jesus and ask if he’s the one. Yet he baptized him! Seriously, the more one reads the bible and studies it, the more one is drawn to the inevitable conclusion it is a fictitious story put together for the sole purpose of relgio/political ends. Truly, it is a very silly ‘book’.”
You are right it seems very incongruous that John would baptize Jesus. This is in fact one of the reasons why people tend to think this event actually happened. Why would people who worship Jesus make up this story? What political end would this serve? This is a well-known incongruity from both a historical and a theological perspective. You see, if you read the books with an open mind you might find there are some things that you will have good reason to think happened.
Finally I asked:
You answered:
I do not have any expectations that you will accept biblical miracles. I am just pointing out that I see no reason why we should be absolutely certain the laws of nature cannot be broken. Whether this opens your mind to the possibility that miracles might occur, I cannot say.
As for miracle claims from other faiths I think they should also be analyzed with historical criteria in mind. In trying to find out if something happened we can use logic, science, historical analysis and probably a few other disciplines I didn’t mention. And yes absolutely I do think the accounts in the Koran are evidence for that faith. . In just about every court case there is almost always some evidence to support contradictory versions of events. It’s not reasonable to think that just because only one of the versions can be true there can’t be any evidence to support another version. Ultimately people need to weigh all the evidence for different faiths and the pros and cons of different beliefs and decide how they are going to live their life. I don’t think presupposition should be the guiding light here. Sadly presupposition seems to rule the day for Dr. Ehrman when it comes to miracles.
So what you are in fact saying is that maybe the miracle accounts in the bible…and every other text could just as easily be false as they could be true.
If you are not absolutely certain of the resurrection then there is equally every reason to consider it is fiction.
What you are trying to do is cherry pick your way through the issue of miracles without essentially compromising your position.
This is untenable and the height of hypocrisy, especially as you use the number of years in the past as some sort of benchmark for deciding the veracity of a miracle claim; ergo, Moses parting the Red Sea…not likely. Jesus being born of a virgin..well, why not.
Yet, you are clearly not comfortable believing later day claims or at best not interested enough to fully investigate.
The historical position of Jesus means little to me, as nothing hinges on him being an historical figure. If he was baptized by the Baptist…who cares?
It has no bearing if taken in isolation. But to the Christian it is important.
Take the bible apart piece by piece and it quickly becomes glaringly apparent it suffers from accidental interpolation to outright fraud.
Miracles? No, there is no evidence and considering your entire faith hinges on a miracle then your argument is baseless.
Stick to faith and don’t try to pretend otherwise, that way noone can call you out.
Good post. I learn something totally new and challenging on sites
I stumbleupon everyday. It’s always helpful to read articles from other authors and practice something from
their web sites.
I am in fact happy to glance at this webpage posts which includes lots of valuable facts, thanks for providing
such data.