This is my reply to an article by Steve Hays entitled
(Here is my earlier reply to Hays' earlier criticism of one of my earlier posts on the same subject)
To some degree, Keener's case-studies are game-changer.
Maybe that's why he has
disabled comments for the YouTube videos wherein he discusses miracles and skepticism.
A traditional objection to miracles is that reported miracles come to us from the distant past, filtered through the accounts (allegedly) written by anonymous authors who may have no firsthand knowledge of the incident or witnesses. This also plays into the famous analogy argument, popularized by Troeltsch (although it has antecedents in other thinkers like Bradley), that miracles reported in the past lack credibility because there's no counterpart in the present. In a sense, Keener can grant that standard of comparison, but call the bluff by appealing to well-documented modern miracles.
Pick the one modern-day miracle claim you think is best explained by God, and provide your reasons for all such. I'll respond. You can hardly complain that I'm willing to examine your best case. Put up or shut up.
That requires unbelievers to adjust the traditional strategy, because it backfired.
Not at all, fool: atheists have realized for more than 50 years that miracle reports are a dime-a-dozen throughout the world.
Now they find themselves confronted by an abundance of reported miracles from eyewitnesses. And this is an ongoing event, at present. Indeed, Keener himself is continually updating his file of case studies. And he's not alone.
Maybe he should do something more godly, like pick the one reported miracle he thinks is best explained by "God" and provide his reasons for all such. Anything less is nothing but the pure trifling sophistry you are already known to prioritize. You know that when you stick with mere trifles of methodology, you can never get smacked down with hurricane force. You also know that were you to pick a modern-day miracle claim you think is best explained by "God", you dramatically increase the odds that you'll get squashed flat. Put up or shut up.
So let's run back through the retooled objections:
No matter how many independent attestations of feeding miracles there may be, the use of multiple attestation of sources only shows the popularity of miracle stories (including "nature" miracles) in certain contexts...
That's all that multiple-attestation shows? Suppose there was a reported sighting of a rabbit at a local park. Then additional reports of rabbits at the park began to pour in. Would that only show the popularity of rabbit stories? Or would independent reports of rabbit-sightings indicate the presence of rabbits at the park?
Suppose there was a reported sighting of Mary at a local park. Then additional reports of Mary at the park began to pour in. Would that only show the popularity of Mary stories? Or would independent reports of Mary-sightings indicate the presence of Mary at the park?
Or perhaps Keener's examples tell us more about social anthropology, social psychology, and the sociology of knowledge than about what can actually happen.
Would multiple examples of rabbit-sightings tell us more about social anthropology, social psychology, and the sociology of knowledge than about the actual existence of rabbits?
Would multiple examples of Mary-sightings tell us more about social anthropology, social psychology, and the sociology of knowledge than about the actual presence of Mary?
What is needed is not the piling up of further examples, but a closer analysis of a selection of the better-documented ones to see what they do in fact establish...
Which is PRECISELY what you never do.
i) Although there's a sense in which the quality of the reportage is more important than the quantity of the reportage, isn't there a tipping-point where the sheer volume of independent reports creates a strong presumption that the reported phenomenon is real?
Unless you require a larger number than 35,000 as the tipping point, your logic compels you to believe Mary really did appear or manifest her presence somehow at Fatima and Lourdes.
If we had lots of reports of rabbit-sightings at the park, we'd be justified in believing that rabbits frequent the park.
So under your logic, "If we had lots of reports of Mary-sightings at Fatima, we'd be justified in believing that Mary frequents the Fatima".
We wouldn't be duty-bound to interview witnesses, conduct background checks to establish their credibility.
Then by the same logic, no Catholic is duty-bound to interview witnesses or conduct background checks to establish their credibility either. But you are rather brick stupid here, since it is only by interviewing witnesses and conducting background checks that you can get closer to the actual truth of the sightings, than if you just stay on the sidelines counting sheer numbers. If your logic were good and practical, courts of law should pronounce a criminal suspect guilty solely because there were multiple eyewitnesses to his alleged crime, no need for jury trial to decide whether the eyewitnesses are telling the truth.
Hiding behind the demand for intensified scrutiny is the prejudicial viewpoint that there's a strong standing presumption against miracles, which only rigorously vetted witnesses can overcome.
You must be seriously delusional to think that the person who demands
intensified scrutiny of alleged miracle claims is trying to "hide". It is precisely "intensified scrutiny" that gets a person closer to the actual truth, than the less comprehensive method you propose: counting the number of witnesses.
Again, you are a clown because you apparently think trifling about this philosophical bullshit is more important than putting your money where your mouth is and
telling us which miracle claim of the modern world you think is best explained by "god".
This assumes that we already know what kind of world we inhabit, a world in which miracles are highly implausible.
We also engage a presumption against miracles when we investigate crimes and suspects' alibis, automatically discounting any testimony to miracles. Perhaps you'd be interested in changing the judicial system so that the jury would be required to seriously discuss any "devil made me do it" and other alibi stories where supernatural means were required for the excuses to work? If a suspect said he was present at the scene, but an angel of the Lord committed the killings, well gee, maybe you'd require the jury to become experts on to what extent God does or doesn't continue his OT ways in the NT era, so they can decide whether there's even any plausibility to claiming that an angel of the Lord does today the same things he did in OT times?
Yet that benchmark is circular. Our belief about what the world is like is largely dependent on testimonial evidence.
It's also dependent on our own empirical experience of how the world works. I wouldn't want you on a jury where the suspect was claiming some miracle as his alibi, you'd deadlock the damn thing because of how presumptuous and fallacious it is to deny miracles, and you'd have nothing more to say after that because you think attempting intensified scrutiny constitutes "hiding". Fuck you.
If miracles are widely reported, then that should figure in our background understanding of the kind of world we inhabit.
If the
falsity of miracles is also widely reported, then
that should figure in our background understanding of the kind of world we inhabit too. We live in a world drowning in miracle claims, and many of them are proven frauds. Only stupid people like you insist that when facing such a world, "intensified scrutiny" of specific miracle claims constitutes "hiding".
ii) The skeptical bias involves the view that our world is regulated by natural laws, which miracles, if they ever occur, must "violate". But even if we accept a natural law framework, which is contentious in itself, it only means that a natural law can't be contravened by a natural event. It creates no presumption against, much less impossibility of, a supernatural event overriding a natural law. And whether there are such exceptions falls within the purview of human observation.
So when the criminal suspect says the devil made him do the crime, the objective jury would have to seriously consider this instead of automatically rejecting it. Fuck you.
iii) I'm also struck by the studied passivity of the critic. If he thinks what is needed is a closer analysis of the better-documented examples, why doesn't he take that upon himself?
Because he doesn't have the time, money or resources to investigate in such a properly thorough way, that fraud and mistake are guarded against as much as possible, genius. In that case, it wouldn't matter if the miracles at issue were truly performed by the Christian god, you'd first have to say that the atheist was irrational to think his job, kids, spouse, mortgage and local family concerns where he lives, deserve his attention more than a miracle claim originating 500 miles away from where he lives.
So, how fanatical are you, Steve? Is the prima facie case for Christianity so real, and the angry god such a dangerous threat to atheists, that they are irrational to spend most of their time, money and resources on job, family, paying bills and ignoring miracle claims?
Really now, do you encourage atheists to make all the changes in their life necessary so that they can devote the vast majority of their time, money and resources investigating miracle claims? What's more important, sex with the spouse, or investigating miracle claims? Getting the kids ready for school, or investigating miracle claims? Keeping a steady job, or investigating miracle claims? Paying the bills so the family maintains food and shelter for themselves, or investigating miracle claims?
What would you think of the atheist who took your bullshit so seriously, he gave up custody of his kids, divorced his wife, quit his job and thereafter did nothing more than eat, sleep, and investigate modern-day miracle claims for as long as his life-savings held out?
What is more important, Steve? That man paying money to his wife for child support? Or that man purchasing materials to aid him in the study of modern-day miracle claims?
What is your advice to atheists who work at low paying jobs full time and personally think devoting time to the family after work is more important than investigating miracle claims?
Are you sufficiently liberal that you'll say it is reasonable for an atheist to devote a limited amount of time per week to study of miracle claims? But Jesus is the creator of the universe, he's certainly worth more study time than that, isn't he? So you don't have that option.
Or are you a stupid fanatic who promises prosperity to those who
give up their kids so they can have more time to practice your religion (Matthew 19:29)?
Investigators like Keener have already done the preliminary spadework. Why does the critic act like it's someone else's job to follow up on those reports?
Few things could be more significant. If supernatural agents exist, is it not important that we nail that down?
Not under Deism. if a god exists, the evil in the world more strongly suggests that god has turned away from the world. And since Keener has already done the preliminary spadework, why are you finding it so difficult to pick the one case he reports, that you feel is best explained by "God did it", and challenging atheists with it?
Wouldn't that dramatically decrease the risk of atheists wasting time money and resources chasing down what turn out to be false miracle claims?
For their existence will impact our lives.
Not under Deism. You started having a bad day when you discovered that natural theology, if it supports any god-belief at all, supports Deism, in which case you lose just as hard as the atheist. That makes more overall sense of the evil in the world, than does "God's mysterious ways".
But you are a Calvinist, you believe God predestined every child rapist to do what they do, so that they couldn't have avoided doing it, making your contribution to the problem of evil rather short and useless.
Indeed, their existence may impact the afterlife–for better or worse.
So maybe atheists should devote their lives to studying everything that can be known about all religions. And since it is possible God decided to take his true religion from the earth at some point in the past, atheists cannot limit themselves to just the top 20 religions in the world today, they must examine all available possibilities including comprehensive analysis of ancient documents testifying to religions that have since disappeared from earth.
So, no job, no kids, no spouse, no marriage, no house, no life, just sitting in a library 12 hours per day making sure that everybody's else's claims about God's fearful torments upon non-members are false. Fuck you. If you can justify avoiding comprehensive study of all religions on the grounds you've already found the actual truth, atheists can justify avoiding comprehensive study of Christianity on the grounds that they've already found the actual truth.
So why does he shrug his shoulders in the face of the prima facie evidence, as if settling that question has no relevance or urgency?
because a) he doesn't have the time, money or resources to do a seriously comprehensive job, and he judges no investigation is better than a half-assed investigation, and b) you don't have a prima facie case merely because you can find millions of people making miracle claims. That's like saying there's a prima facie case for Hinduism because of how many millions claim it to be true.
if miracles are really so commonplace, perhaps they're not so miraculous after all.
The defining element of a miracle is not rarity but a supernatural source. An event that defies the ordinary course of nature, pointing to supernatural agency.
I'd never make such a stupid argument as that miracles aren't really miracles if they occur routinely. If God exists, he could choose to do miracles routinely. Miracles are defined as acts of God, not as uncommon events.
All Keener's work can ultimately do is to get us to the level of belief in miracles being present.
If we received numerous reports of rabbit-sightings in a park, would that only get us to the level of belief in rabbits being presence? Wouldn't that count as evidence for the presence of rabbits?
If we received numerous reports of Mary-sightings in a park, would that only get us to the level of belief in Mary's being present? Wouldn't that count as evidence for the presence of Mary?
Of course not. You probably haven't felt compelled to go see the alleged miracles in Fatima and Lourdes yourself despite the prima facie case, so apparently, you believe it possible to justify denial of miracle claims without ever checking them out personally. That's what I do with modern-day miracle claims. Welcome to the club.
Yes, they believe what they saw, but the point is what forms the basis of their belief. It's not sheer belief, but belief grounded in observation. What underlies their belief in rabbits is the spectacle of rabbits in their field of vision.
What underlies their belief in Mary is the spectacle of Mary in their field of vision.
There are two elements to these reports: the reported experience and the reported interpretation. It's not, in the first instance, belief in a miracle, but the observation of an event. It's then a question of how to properly characterize the nature of the event.
A leap of faith is still required to confirm that there is a supernatural agent behind such purported miracles and this cannot be proven by a historian.
"It could have been something else" is just as valid or invalid, just as speculative, and has obvious limitations for the historian. The only firm evidence the historian has is that people claim miracles happen"
i) It's true that there's a distinction between the event and the construal. However, inferring a supernatural agent isn't a leap of faith. Rather, that involves an understanding with regard to the limitations of what a natural process can yield. And that's not a uniquely Christian understanding. Indeed, atheists discount reported miracles because they typically subscribe to physicalism and causal closure.
Yeah, that's also the exact same basis upon which you know, as a juror, that the criminal suspect's alibi "the devil must have fabricated my fingerprints at the scene" is false. But under your present logic, we shouldn't be excluding the miraculous from the courtroom. Unfortunately, if we allowed jurors to consider miracle-testimony, jury verdicts would be less objective than they already often are. If a majority of jurors thought the miracle alibi excuse was true, the guilty suspect would go free, the number of criminals claiming some miracle alibi would grow impossibly large, and states would probable secede from the union because of how sharply America would be divided over this stupid bullshit.
Miracles imply a larger reality. If, therefore, a well-attested event is inconsistent with natural law (in that sense), then, in principle, an atheist must infer outside agency that transcends what is naturally possible.
Only where that agency is defined in coherent terms. So this automatically excludes the Christian god, which means whatever god some miracle 'proves', the Christian loses just as hard as the atheist.
"It could have been something else" is not just as valid or invalid on secular grounds no less than Christian grounds. For an atheist, the only viable explanations consistent with naturalism are naturalistic explanations. If an event is naturally inexplicable, then the logic of naturalism requires a supernatural explanation.
Agreed. When you come up with any miracle claims for which you think the God hypothesis is a better explanation than a naturalistic hypothesis, let me know. Stupid people who enjoy trying to commit suicide would respond "Jesus' resurrection!".
Then again, you simply aren't interested in putting your money where your mouth is, are you Steve. You cannot get your ass handed to you quite as fiercely in a debate about the evils of naturalistic methodology, as you could if you claimed some specific modern-day miracle claim was truly performed by the "god". Hence you never put your money where your mouth is, you content yourself to dazzle your readers by pointing out how atheist belief is self-contradictory. It's pretty clear who's doing the hiding, and it's not me.
ii) The critic tries to insulate his position by artificially compartmentalizing the task of the "historian". But reality isn't compartmentalized. Historians seek causes. Historians appeal to personal agency all the time. Historians draw inferences like everyone else.
And historians and everybody else are often justifiably suspicious of a person's claim even where that claim is later proven true.
If the ultimate explanation points to a source behind the empirical phenomenology of the event that can't be explained by physical causes alone, then an intellectually honest historian must follow the logical trail back to the point of origin. And he isn't switching explanatory principles. It still comes down to personal agency.
It also comes down to "all incoherent concepts are excluded, the god of Christianity is an incoherent concept, hence, he is excluded from all miracle claims".
