Miracles are Married to the Vicious Circle
Miracles are events like magic. Religion says God does them. God makes all
things out of nothing so he can do them. Making things out of nothing is a
miracle.
Religion has to pretend that miracles are rational in the following sense: God
does them because they are really needed and he does them to prove his presence
and love. They have a direct or indirect message.
If we say, "It's not likely that X rose from the dead because dead men stay
dead" the only possible reply the Church can give is that we don't know what is
likely. We don't know, it might say, what exceptions there are to the rule.
So, "Jesus rose from the dead for it may have been likely". That is a bizarre
argument. It does not follow. It is worse than, "Jesus rose for I think so and I
am right for Jesus rose."
If we do not know what is probable, then can we say a miracle is probably
rational? We cannot. It is even more irrational when religion is only guessing
that God has reasons for doing the miracles that justify such a different way of
working. In other words, religion only guesses that miracles are exceptions to
the rule.
We do not think the dolls in the wardrobe come alive and come out when there is
nobody about. If they did, we would see that as an exception to the natural rule
that they stay in the wardrobe. An exception must prove the rule and not
contradict it. Exceptions have to prove the law not contradict it. You can only
know that something is an exception to the rule if you understand why the rule
had to be suspended. An exception that is done for an insufficient reason or
reasons is breaking the rule. It is not an exception.
So, "The rule is that dolls do not come to life. But these dolls were an
exception though I don't know why." That is really a vicious circle for it is
assuming an exception when it should try to understand how and why for until
that is done you cannot know if it is an exception.
"God has reasons for doing miracles. God does miracles. Therefore God has
reasons for doing them and miracles are the exception to the rule that prove the
rule." That is a really hideous and bad argument. It is nothing more than
seductive manipulation and deception. Miracles give us vocations as liars.
How could a miracle be necessary if it is not making sense and demanding
circular reasoning and vicious circles? It cannot. If it is not necessary for God
then it is not necessary for us either. Then why should Christians base their
faith on the resurrection of Jesus? It's not even significant and yet they deny
salvation to those who scorn it.
Vicious circles are attempts to mask the fact that we being irrational and
concerned about what we want to believe and not the truth. They lead to a person
being vicious and insecure. A vicious circle always shows that the person using
the argument is arguing in bad faith.
Religion will answer that unbelievers have a vicious circle too.
Unbelievers say miracles probably never really happened. Believers say they are
assuming what they want to prove - eg that nature is uniform and that no
miracles have taken place. If so then the unbelievers are not giving evidence or
proof that miracles do not happen.
Believers respond, “Those who disbelieve in miracles should not assume miracles
do not happen. Instead they should consider the evidence for miracles first.
They should not say no miracles are true unless they have successfully refuted
them all or shown them unconvincing.”
The unbeliever is being accused of a tautology. He is supposedly saying, “You
need evidence for miracles and there is none though I have not looked therefore
miracles do not happen.” This is a serious accusation for anybody who uses
circular reasoning is not arguing in good faith and the person is attempting to
destroy truth forever by giving you a vicious circle for he is attempting to
make an argument that cannot be refuted though it should be and deserves to be.
But what if both sides are equally assuming? If you have magic assumption a and
mundane assumption b then you go for b. That is just wisdom and logic and you
will lose the reality check if you start making magical guesses equal to
non-magical.
The unbeliever does not need to use a tautology and if he did he would still be
wiser than the believer though not much wiser.
If something happens then what do people do?
They say it is down to nature.
They say it is down to the supernatural
They say it is down to both.
The unbeliever only needs to refute the most meaningful miracles. Or he can
settle for saying there is no way to know one way or the other so he will assume
the miracle did not happen.
Or he cab target the biggest ones.
Or the one he has the best access to. A miracle you see is a better target than
any one you don’t see.
We have to assume that magic probably does not happen for we need to live firmly
in mundane reality. Evidence cannot turn something that is unlikely into
something likely for evidence is about what is likely.