What is it about the religious persons psyche that requires anything unexplainable be relabelled miraculous? It seems to me that believers abhor anything they can’t explain or understand, that ‘god’ is the default answer if a rational one eludes us. What is so wrong with saying that something is currently beyond our understanding but that one day we may be able to know all there is to know about it?
Scientists regularly discover things that are beyond our comprehension and that drives them to do research, experiment and postulate hypotheses until there is a theory explaining whatever it was we didn’t understand. I am quite sure that any beliefs regarding ‘the afterlife’ are just another example. Why does the unknown scare people so much?
There was recently an opinion piece in New Scientist titled “Do you believe in miracles?” and as with all articles on the topic of religion the comments section degraded into the usual slanging match between atheists and believers concerning what does or doesn’t constitute a miracle and whether to be a miracle, in the caused-by-god sense, something must defy the Laws of Nature.
For the rational amongst us the fact that anyone would argue that miracles exist and that god causes them is just as ludicrous as people believing the Jonah or Noah tales.
Here’s my take on it. Anything labelled a “miracle” is either simply an occurrence that the observer can not explain or perhaps something intentionally lied about for gain, or just something as yet inexplicable by current scientific knowledge. There seems to be a prevalent feeling in society today that to not know something, or more importantly to be seen not knowing something, somehow implies stupidity. This is very wrong. Being unable to explain something only shows one does not possess the required information, irrespective of whether that is because the information doesn’t currently exist or because one has never learned it. Ignorance isn’t a sin, choosing to remain ignorant certainly should be.
There must have been many things previously thought of as miracles that have since been debunked. Most would be nothing more than coincidences. How miraculous would a solar eclipse have seemed to people in millennia past?
Does David Copperfield perform miracles or illusions? If his act was performed a few hundred years ago it would be called miraculous and/or he would be burnt at the stake. Millions watched as he made the Statue of Liberty disappear that doesn’t make it a miracle.
How does one recognise a miracle as they are indistinguishable from any unexplained phenomenon.
A true miracle would be undeniable. Perhaps a multiple amputee that had been examined and certified as such by several skeptical scientists with no agenda suddenly growing new limbs in a matter of seconds in front of an audience of scientists and doctors that could examine the person again afterward and verify there was no hoax involved. That might qualify as a miracle.
If tomorrow you went to the toilet and excreted the young of ten different species of mammals, fish, birds and insects. That would be a miracle, but only if it was verified beforehand that you hadn’t put them there.
The famous line “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is true.
There is a reason there have never been any verified miracles. There aren’t any. A miracle would require something with the power of a god and as there are no gods there are no miracles.
It would be fair to say. A miracle is in the mind of the deluded beholder.
Please note all references to the word miracle in this article are made based on the current use of the word when concerning religion and supernatural belief not the original meaning of ‘wonderful’ or ‘to wonder at’.
Another post by EvilGod, one of the Unindoctrinated.
There is obviously a lot to learn. There are some good points here.
surface encounters
Learned people look at the well documented occurance and find that no known process woulld produce that result. Then they accept that a world concealed from us was involved.
There is a new book looking at those worlds, explaining how they are and why they are. Open minds will find its ideas essential in future discussions.
With the existence of ‘Techie Worlds’ (available at amazon.com) believers in Christianity can hold their views utilizing sound logic, clear thinking and a mechanistic view of worlds. Applying Flatland’s concept of contiguous dimensional worlds, Trinity, Resurrection, Judgment and soul are sensible and mechanically viable beliefs. ‘Techie Worlds’ follows that rule of science by which individual details are tested for their conformity to the overarching hypothesis. Admittedly, agnostics may choose not to follow such obvious and sensible logic, but no longer can they denigrate believers for fuzzy thinking. Moslems and pagans who read and understand the sound logic of the Flatland concept must adopt the reasonable Trinitarian view. ‘Techie Worlds’ will make them abandon the ways of terror an adopt the way of love. Techie Worlds is not standard preacher-prattle. Only by reading it can you open your mind to its valid way of understanding Christianity.
GeorgeRic
Using a book full of unprovable hypothesis to validate your belief in a book full of demonstrably false superstition and fantasy is hardly rational.
Your first phrase is however perfectly correct, it is the fact that the religious mindset makes you credit god for whatever is currently unknown rather than accepting that something can simply be unknown or possibly unknowable. It appears that religious people cannot accept that and just use “god did it’ whenever they don’t know something.
“It’s what religious people have faith in that concerns me.”
Exactly.
Oops. Let me post the link to the post I wrote: “Doubt”
LOL, get a few beers in me and you got a very fine, rambling and jumbled rant!
Thanks for the compliment nonetheless.
You should see the Instant Messages that we have after a couple of beers. We sound like Yoda from Star Wars. 🙂
Yes we do don’t we. LOL
Hi mom. 🙂
I’ve just posted a similar piece on mine. More concerning the suspension of doubt and how faith is the suspension of doubt. Your post kinda ties into this in that those of faith really don’t consider that there may be another explanation for a “miracle” than that which is either literally evident or literally explainable. Hence, the only explanation is that which is “explained” through what they have been indoctrinated to believe; suspending their capacity to doubt what they perceive to be an incarnation of a “reality” that (to their minds) exists in a perceived truth. In essence people who subscribe to miracles have ceased to suspend their faith and embrace doubt; to question and query other alternatives that which lie outside their preconceived notions that have been instilled through dogma and doctrine.
Very well put. I’ve just been over at your blog for a read. You certainly write way better than I do, not that that is a particularly difficult thing to do.
I have no problem with believers stating that atheism requires as much faith as theism. Dictionary.com describes ‘faith as “belief that is not based on proof” and as is often said we can not prove that god doesn’t exist, it’s just phenomenally improbable.
I prefer to refer to myself as an Anti-theist which puts me in the position where I must say I have faith in my belief that no gods exist and that I see nothing wrong with the concept of faith, as everybody who votes has faith that their chosen candidate will represent them in the way promised. It’s what religious people have faith in that concerns me.