Forums → WEPR → Miracles
| 80 | 30326 |
I don't quite remember who doubted miracles, but how do you explain these? Scientists have always chosen to stay away from these. Kinda funny how these people were known as holy people when alive.
http://www.protestanterrors.com/incorruptibles.htm
- 80 Replies
I feel like this thread has gotten off course a bit. When I last checked, we were considering a proper definition of a miracle. I have yet to see one (though I will return to this point later).
First off, I noticed a comparison between the faith of theists and the so-called faith in the scientific community. This is a misnomer, or more properly, a misunderstanding of what's going on in the scientific community. A standard line in the philosophy of science is to not attribute belief to the community. Sure, there are plenty of scientists who believe plenty of things about science. But as a community, the term 'belief' might not apply.
To see this, we can consider two things. First, there are a number of things the scientific community takes for granted. Here are some examples: that the universe (or reality) is pretty much how we perceive it to be; that causation obtains in the manner how we perceive it; that temporal succession is a feature of our universe.
These are things the scientific community takes for granted - and they realise that they take it for granted. Without these claims, scientific pursuit can't even get off the ground. But to call this taking-for-granted a kind of belief or - more suspect - a kind of faith is ridiculous. The scientific community realises these claims could be false, but works within the schema that they're true.
Second, it's difficult to ascribe belief in the first place to a scientific community. Compare a community of, say, Presbyterians to string theorists (or, more properly, M-theorists). There are certain things one *must* believe in order to be a Presbyterian. This is not so for being a string theorist. I might not even believe that string theory is the proper explanation of the physical universe yet still be successful in exploring the theory and its implications.
But now to the main point, which is the only definition I've seen thus far for a miracle -- again provided by mbb. Of course s/he clearly isn't a theologian (nor am I) but I can tell you straight away his/her claim is too narrow. The definition in question is that a miracle is something that is physically impossible. But let's think about this for a moment.
Consider a roulette wheel. The outcome is a physically determined event based on the velocity and spin of the ball, the friction between the ball and wheel, the motion of the wheel, etc. In short, if I knew all the relevant factors I could calculate the outcome of a roulette spin.
Now I might pray to God to win money gambling and He might agree, thus altering the path of the ball. This would be an instance of something that is physically impossible.
Now consider a scenario in which I'm driving down a road. Up ahead is a flood, of which I'm unaware, and were I to drive into it I would likely drown. But before I can reach that section of road, a branch falls and blocks my path. Now let's say this occurs at time t0, thanks to God's intervention. Had he not intervened, it would have occurred at time t1. But it's still compatible in this scenario that the branch *could have* nonetheless fallen at t0. In other words, it's not inconceivable given our understanding of the world around that the branch might fall at time t0 rather than at t1.
Thus mbb's definition of a miracle doesn't seem to capture this scenario and is too narrow But since physical possibility is the narrowest of possibilities, what are we left with? I'd have to say an ad hoc notion of miraculous, whatever it happened to be.
But now to the main point, which is the only definition I've seen thus far for a miracle
This is the best I could find.
"(Latin miraculum, from mirari, "to wonder".
In general, a wonderful thing, the word being so used in classical Latin; in a specific sense, the Latin Vulgate designates by miracula wonders of a peculiar kind, expressed more clearly in the Greek text by the terms terata, dynameis, semeia, i.e., wonders performed by supernatural power as signs of some special mission or gift and explicitly ascribed to God.
These terms are used habitually in the New Testament and express the meaning of miraculum of the Vulgate. Thus St. Peter in his first sermon speaks of Christ as approved of God, dynamesin, kai terasin kai semeiois (Acts 2:22) and St. Paul says that the signs of his Apostleship were wrought, semeiois te kai terasin kai dynamesin (2 Corinthians 12:12). Their united meaning is found in the term erga i.e., works, the word constantly employed in the Gospels to designate the miracles of Christ. The analysis of these terms therefore gives the nature and scope of the miracle."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm
"A miracle (from the Latin mirari, to wonder), at a first and very rough approximation, is an event that is not explicable by natural causes alone. A reported miracle excites wonder because it appears to require, as its cause, something beyond the reach of human action and natural causes. Historically, the appeal to miracles has formed one of the primary lines of argument in favor of specific forms of theism, the argument typically being that the event in question can best (or can only) be explained as the act of a particular deity."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/miracles/
This starts off with the problem of defining miracle.
"In sketching out a brief philosophical discussion of miracles, it would be desirable to begin with a definition of âmiracle;â unfortunately, part of the controversy in regard to miracles is over just what is involved in a proper conception of the miraculous. As a rough beginning, however, we might observe that the term is from the Latin miraculum, which is derived from mirari, to wonder; thus the most general characterization of a miracle is as an event that provokes wonder. As such, it must be in some way extraordinary, unusual, or contrary to our expectations. Disagreement arises, however, as to what makes a miracle something worth wondering about. In what sense must a miracle be extraordinary? One of the earliest accounts is given by St. Augustine, who held (City of God, XXI.8.2) that a miracle is not contrary to nature, but only to our knowledge of nature; miracles are made possible by hidden potentialities in nature that are placed there by God. In Summa Contra Gentiles III:101, St. Thomas Aquinas, expanding upon Augustineâs conception, said that a miracle must go beyond the order usually observed in nature, though he insisted that a miracle is not contrary to nature in any absolute sense, since it is in the nature of all created things to be responsive to Godâs will."
http://www.iep.utm.edu/miracles/#H1
If that was to ever happen...the moment it happens, Creationists would freak out claiming that Creationism must be true then.
and entirely denying the newly found evidence.... -.-'
yea it wont solve the creationists problem. but it will be cool non the less.
He does want to inform..and that's the beauty of Mage. Doesn't mean you can't learn from the rest of us either
it go's 2 ways.
we learn from him and he learns from us.(and many other sources of course)
I think this is the first time I'm saying this...if only 314d1 was here
if you want, i can do a full rant. it's been a while since i done 1. i think that number guy was the last one i went fully against. (and masterforger but he is just ......)
In that sort of situation I wouldn't sit in the chair.
me neither but it was mend in a hypothetical senario where i had no other option but to sit on the chair. xD
(i was just trying to split trust and faith because i c trust and faith as 2 entirely different things.)
I feel like this thread has gotten off course a bit. When I last checked, we were considering a proper definition of a miracle.
skip page 7. almost nothing on-topic in there
Thanks for the definitions, Mage. Ya gotta love the SEP
And I think you really got to the tension in trying to define a miracle. It seems like having a low degree of probability is neither necessary nor sufficient for an event to be a miracle. We also can't define it in terms of possibility, since such a definition is too narrow.
So it looks like we're only left with saying something about divine intervention. But I'm wondering if this is even necessary. Is it possible that a miraculous event could obtain just by a divine power allowing it to happen (as opposed to causing it to happen). I'm not sure this is sensible, though.
Miracle -- Anomaly inexplicably experienced
I like the word "anomaly", because it further defines "a deviation from common rule; abnormality". I also like "experienced", because miracles do not necessarily have to be in favor of one party, only that "what was experienced cannot be explained".
Some of these miracles were discovered and developed into more advanced scientific technologies. The discovery of fermentation in the Stone-Bronze age lead to FRAT PARTIES.
You must be logged in to post a reply!