Cumulative Argument for Miracles
Miracles are events that God uses to let us know he is there and what he wants of us. They are opposed by sceptics who think they sound too much like magic. A miracle is something that nature cannot do such as make Jesus' mother appear in a grotto in Lourdes in 1858.
The evidence is totally problematic which is why some believers try to make a
cumulative case for a miracle being real. Unbelievers say you need hard evidence
and there never is any.
Sometimes a piece of evidence on its own is weak. But suppose other pieces of
evidence appear that are similarly weak. Each item is not worth much but
together they form sufficient reason to believe something. The evidence can
accumulate in favour of a certain conclusion.
Some such as Swinburne say that miracles are like that. They make a cumulative
case for miracles.
But is there such a thing?
Suppose there is cumulative evidence that Jesus came to life after being dead a
week.
But what if you are starting with the conclusion and then looking for the
evidence? That means your assessment of what is evidence and what it points to
or may point to is unfair. We tend to assess evidence so that we see it as
pointing to what we wish to believe. This is the problem of confirmation bias.
Cumulative evidence leads different people to different conclusions. And some
people will work out that the evidence does not point to one conclusion but to a
number.
You cannot put somebody in jail over cumulative evidence for it is too open to
interpretation. The resurrection of Jesus is too big of a claim to be justified
as believable on the basis of cumulative evidence.
And if the cumulative evidence might indicate that Jesus rose, the problem is
that it might indicate other things too. If you think aliens raised Jesus you
will accept the evidence. If you think the evidence is that something happened
to make it look like Jesus rose you will accept the evidence. If you think it
was a satanic hoax or down to some rare psychic phenomena and not down to God
you will accept the evidence. If you think the evidence only points to a man who
may or may not have been Jesus claiming to be the resurrected Jesus you will
accept the evidence.
People talk about cumulative evidence for the resurrection but in reality there
is no such thing. There is only cumulative evidence that people seemed to
have believed in it. That is a much weaker claim.
Cumulative evidence can point to a conclusion that is in fact wrong.
Cumulative evidence can contain snippets of evidence that should not be in the
mix at all. People who agree there is cumulative evidence for x will not agree
that everything presented as evidence really is evidence. There will be items
that are considered to be possible evidence but which could equally possibly be
non-related.
Cumulative evidence is always open to revision. As more evidence comes to light,
the conclusion will have to be updated or changed or discarded.
Some or much of the cumulative evidence will consist of human testimony. The
problem becomes then a question of what testimony you are going to accept as
correct.
The Roman Catholic does not consider cumulative evidence for a miracle by
itself. He slots it into the Catholic worldview and its philosophical
assumptions. He tries to connect the things he says he knows from his faith to
the evidence. He says there are other ways to know what is believable - it is not
just all about evidence. The evidence then is not examined by itself but shoved
into a context. With that approach, any religion can claim miracles and argue
that there is a cumulative case for these miracles and their having showed the
religion to be true or believable.
The New Testament and religions like Catholicism make it a duty to believe in
miracles such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Suppose there
is only cumulative evidence for the resurrection. Then it is simply bullying to
insist that it is a duty to believe. Cumulative evidence is not good enough, it
is
too hazy, thus it is not a basis for inventing and creating a duty.
The argument that cumulative evidence is good enough to justify believing that
Jesus rose is nonsense. We would be gullible idiots if we believed in magic or
miracle that easily.
If cumulative evidence points to the magical or the impossible then something is
badly wrong.
Religion says we should not assume miracles are nonsense. It says we should
assume they can happen. In fact, we should not assume they may happen unless
sufficient evidence says they may. That is the only fair and unbiased approach.
But in practice it is not possible. You have to assume miracles happen before
you can take the evidence as pointing to them. So you end up in a vicious
circle. Religion will say that you have to assume they do not happen before you
can say the evidence for a miracle does not point to a miracle. They point out
that the critic has a vicious circle too.
If there are two vicious circles then which one must we accept? The one that
denies that evidence for miracles really is for miracles. Better to guess that
miracles never happen than to guess they do for then you open the door for
guessing all kinds of insane things such as that the pope is actually a
resurrected Pol Pot in disguise.
Different religions report miracles and this causes much confusion for the
religions and miracles have much that is conflicting.
The cumulative case for miracles is ruined if miracles
are happening in contexts that are not religious or interested in evangelising a
faith.
Hindus report miracles that seem to show that God is doing them as signs of
approval of their doctrines. Catholics report miracles that seem to show that
God is doing them as signs of approval of their doctrines. Protestants report
miracles that seem to show that God is doing them as signs of approval of their
doctrines. So the miracle accounts from different religions cancel each other
out.
Some ecumenically minded religionists reply that the miracles may still be real
and that the religions may be wrong in claiming them as signs of their own
specific doctrines. They think God can do a miracle to comfort and encourage
belief in God among Hindus and Catholics and Protestants while caring little for
the other doctrines of these faiths.
Then how can the miracles really be from him when he knows people will use them
to back up their religions? He doesn't need to do miracles to bring them to
himself.
Others say that the miracles of other religions do not cancel out the miracles
of their religion because their religion has the real miracles while the others
are just hoaxes or mistakes have been made.
This is simply a bigoted lie pure and simple for there have been miracles such
as those involving Daniel Dunglas Home the spiritual medium that are more
convincing than the resurrection of Jesus Christ. At least we know who the
witnesses were and the written evidence is better.
Religion says that a cup of tea turning into cranberry juice would not be a
miracle for it has no religious importance. There are testimonies that such
events occur. Religion ignores these. Yet it says its miracles should be
believed in because there is solid testimony. This is inconsistent and
hypocritical. If silly and random miracles happen it could be that the miracles
of religion are random too for it must be some random power that is doing the
non-religious and the religious miracles. In that case, religion could not use
miracles as evidence for its doctrines being true.
If you take miracles as signs that your religion is true, you do so because of
your prior beliefs. If you take a miracle as confirmation of the existence of
God, it is because you have already taken for granted that there is a God. If
you assume a miracle is just a strange thing you see it merely as a strange
thing and it has no religious significance for you. Clearly miracles encourage
and feed upon the fallacy of confirmation bias. They are useless as objective
evidences for religious truth. Those who endorse them are endorsing an unfair
bias.
It is biased but less biased to see them merely as anomalies than to see them as
signs from God. Do not give in and copy the bigotry of those who wish to put
that bias in you. A bias is never simply against an idea but against those who
adopt the idea. It is personal.
When something invites you to argue, "I cannot know what it is like for the
world to suffer. Ever. Yet I will see this suffering as agreeable with the love
and omnipotence of God", that something needs to provide outstanding evidence.
Otherwise you are no better than an insensitive person who condones the evil
done by a tyrant. Miracles are an insulting effort at evidence but they are not
evidence. If higher powers are doing them then they are not laudable powers.
Conclusion
The philosophical proof that miracles should be discarded as superstition and
harmful is unassailable. Instead of saying that there is cumulative
evidence say for the resurrection of Jesus you must say, "I think there is
cumulative evidence but if you say different that is fine. It is a matter
of interpretation." You cannot get from that to as in the creed, "On the
third day he rose again from the dead." That is a denial that there is a
cumulative argument or that such thing is much of a help. A book that
refutes cumulative defending of the Christian faith is Geisler's Christian
Apologetics. Warranted Christian Belief by Plantinga is another. But
many including Geisler say that you can use a cumulative case to show that a
religion or worldview is untrue or unlikely but not that anything like that is
true. That is the problem.
Further Reading ~
A Christian Faith for Today, W Montgomery Watt, Routledge, London, 2002
Answers to Tough Questions, Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Scripture Press,
Bucks, 1980
Apparitions, Healings and Weeping Madonnas, Lisa J Schwebel, Paulist Press, New
York, 2004
A Summary of Christian Doctrine, Louis Berkhof, The Banner of Truth Trust,
London, 1971
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Veritas, Dublin, 1995
Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, San Francisco,
1988
Enchiridion Symbolorum Et Definitionum, Heinrich Joseph Denzinger, Edited by A
Schonmetzer, Barcelona, 1963
Looking for a Miracle, Joe Nickell, Prometheus Books, New York, 1993
Miracles, Rev Ronald A Knox, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1937
Miracles in Dispute, Ernst and Marie-Luise Keller, SCM Press Ltd, London, 1969
Lourdes, Antonio Bernardo, A. Doucet Publications, Lourdes, 1987
Medjugorje, David Baldwin, Catholic Truth Society, London, 2002
Miraculous Divine Healing, Connie W Adams, Guardian of Truth Publications, KY,
undated
New Catholic Encyclopaedia, The Catholic University of America and the
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc, Washington, District of Columbia, 1967
Philosophy of Religion for A Level, Anne Jordan, Neil Lockyer and Edwin Tate,
Nelson Throne Ltd, Cheltenham, 2004
Raised From the Dead, Father Albert J Hebert SM, TAN, Illinois 1986
Science and the Paranormal, Edited by George O Abell and Barry Singer, Junction
Books, London, 1981
The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan, Headline, London, 1997
The Book of Miracles, Stuart Gordon, Headline, London, 1996
The Case for Faith, Lee Strobel, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2000
The Encyclopaedia of Unbelief Volume 1, Gordon Stein, Editor, Prometheus Books,
New York, 1985
The Hidden Power, Brian Inglis, Jonathan Cape, London, 1986
The Sceptical Occultist, Terry White, Century, London, 1994
The Stigmata and Modern Science, Rev Charles Carty, TAN, Illinois, 1974
Twenty Questions About Medjugorje, Kevin Orlin Johnson, Ph.D. Pangaeus Press,
Dallas, 1999
Why People Believe Weird Things, Michael Shermer, Freeman, New York, 1997
THE WEB
The Problem of Competing Claims by Richard Carrier
www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/indef/4c.html