"I BELIEVE IN CHRISTIANITY BECAUSE IT IS IMPROBABLE"
Miracles like Jesus rising from the dead are part of
Christianity. Christianity, the faith of miracles, says miracles are
improbable. It says however that the evidence is good enough to justify
believing in them. A miracle might be improbable but as you get evidence and
testimony the probability that it happened increases. The improbability
decreases. It can be very improbable that a testimony to a miracle is wrong. So
if miracles are inherently improbable, there are other concerns that might
reduce that improbability.
So evidence overrides improbability. Actually it is
evidence that says a miracle is improbable. You weigh this against evidence that
it happened.
At this point people talk about theoretical improbability. This is a fancy term for something that does not look likely. That is very subjective.
Evidence stripping away the improbability of something is not the same thing.
And if there is a theory, the miracle should be the one making the theory. "I am improbable but look how I happened." That avoids the subjectivity problem we met earlier.
So a miracle is only an issue for theoretical improbability if it says it is. But no miracle says that. Even Jesus didn't say, "Dead men don't rise but look how I did it?" He made no comment on whether people have started rising more than anybody in his company realised.
Theoretical improbability is outweighed by evidence when the evidence is sufficient and of reasonable quality. But that fact is actually irrelevant here.
We are not talking about theoretical improbability
here at all. We are talking about evidence saying miracles are improbable and
then evidence turning up that a miracle has happened. We are not theorising
about what is probable but basing our belief in probability on what evidence
indicates.
With everything that is reported, there is always
misinterpreted evidence or absent evidence or overlooked evidence. No matter how
good a witness is or how careful it will not be as good as seeing it for
yourself. And that is the case for miracles and magic more than anything else.
Proving that something is plausible/probable is
desirable but proving something plausible/probable does not prove it is true. A
plausible/probable miracle is always under threat from a contradicting one that
is equally or more plausible/probable. If miracle believers were honest the
focus would continuously be on the evidence for plausibility/probability not on
the miracle.
Evidence from a person who has manipulated evidence
If a fraudster gives you evidence it is possible the
evidence is real. But because there is evidence he cannot be trusted it follows
that the evidence has to be given the status of alleged evidence. This is not an
ad hominem argument. Ad hominem means you attack the person making the argument
not the argument. It is not that. It is evidence of
untrustworthiness decreeing that the evidence may not be solid.
Genuine believers in miracles would attempt to verify and promote them regardless of any religious underpinnings. We would have Catholic books arguing that the pagan idol Ganesh drank milk (if it did) or that some breatharian really did manage to live on fresh air and was not trying to make a religious sign out of it. It would not matter what the miracle implies or says. They would just check it out and declare it plausible if it is indeed plausible.
Yet what you get is everybody choosing miracles to suit their prejudices and worldview and presenting them in such a way that it look as if the wonders are defending a specific religious system system or collective religious doctrine.
A miracle that is only promoted and defended because it can fit a specific religious worldview is being abused. Alarmingly that remains true even if it does seem to promote the miracle. Lots of miracles can look like or seem to support lots of different and contradictory religious ideas. The miracle is manipulated yes but it is really about manipulating the believers and the public.
A miracle should be checked because it is a
reported miracle and for no other reason.
Science should be able to determine that something
does not fit known natural laws. Religion by saying miracles have been verified
is doing science. Except it is rogue science!
There is no evidence for miracles. There is only
alleged evidence.
The Intuition that Strong Miracle Evidence is
Needed
When there are two or more competing explanations of
the available evidence, accept the explanation that is the simplest for the
simplest one is most likely to be true and reject any inadequate ones. This is
Occam's Razor. It is essential if one wants to be sane or stay sane. Life would
be worse than Hell if we keep inventing explanations for things instead of
seeking out the simplest explanation. Occam's Razor can only work if you stick
with natural explanations.
Once you bring in the supernatural it becomes
useless.
Once you discard the Razor, the potential for error
becomes very great. People can apply the principle wrongly but the principle in
itself is flawless. Even if the principle could make you err, not having it
would make you err more!
Evidence is the only way to test what is said to be
true. We cannot believe anything, not even revelation from God, without having
some evidence for belief or grounds for belief.
David Hume reasoned that miracles are so improbable
that we need to go beyond a normal amount of evidence to verify them or make
them believable. Hard evidence is hard to get so it can be considered
sufficient. It is not that normal though it does happen.
This is obviously correct.
Most believing people even in the Catholic Church
have a weak belief in some miracles. They do not agree with Hume fully but they
agree to a large level. They agree with him when they meet a miracle claim they
do not want to believe.
Nobody agrees on exactly what was a miracle and what
was not. Some Christians are suspicious of the resurrection of Jesus. People
implicitly imply that testimony to a miracle is not enough and more is needed.
Hume would have agreed.
Nobody believes in miracles for the exact same
reasons as somebody else. The reasons are more important than the belief.
Believing in the miracles of Lourdes because your parents told you they happened
is really just believing your parents. It is trusting them not God. Hume
criticised this kind of approach as superstition. It would not be superstition
to believe in Lourdes if the evidence was satisfactory but to believe it on
hearsay would be risky and superstition. If you believe the truth because of
hearsay you are not honouring truth. Your reasons for accepting it are wrong.
And tending to have the wrong reasons is a dangerous habit.
The person who believes the truth for the wrong
reasons is no better than a person who believes lies for the wrong reasons. He
or she is still not recognising the truth as truth. To see your mother when your
glasses are distorted means you don't know if you really see her or not.
Those with any faith at all - little or large - may
not hold on it to it very long.
The vast majority of people do not take miracle
claims as seriously as they do say claims that the VAT rate will rise etc. They
agree with Hume more than what they may think.
What Hume reasoned is intuitive. Religion is trying
to skew our thinking and feelings by brainwashing us to feel and see it
differently.
You can't settle for an alcoholic's testimony that
Charlie murdered Sheila. The testimony, however hard to lend credence to, is
evidence but it is not enough. You need a better testimony than that. For
example, the testimony of forensics that Sheila's blood was under Charlie's
fingernail. The more serious and the stranger the claim the better the quality
of evidence that is needed. And a claim coming from an alcoholic liar is a
strange claim by default!
A religious claim is both serious and strange.
Religion says that when it checks miracles such as
apparitions from Heaven, it ensures that the visionary really believes they are
seeing Jesus or Mary or whatever. But that is not a clue that we should believe
them. It may only indicate the possibility that they are sincere - not that they
are right. Sincere but incorrect testimonies were rife during the Jack the
Ripper investigations in London 1888. Any piece of evidence for a miracle is not
evidence for a miracle at all. It is only evidence for the faith and
belief of the people involved in experiencing the miracle.
Hume said that we need miraculous evidence to justify
believing. Evidence that is naturally good can only back up natural events.
Evidence that is magically good is the only kind of evidence that can back up
supernatural events. For example, if Jesus really rose from the dead we should
find a miraculous CCTV recording of it preserved for us for two thousand years.
This would not be absolute proof. There would still
be room for scepticism. But it is the very least we would expect in order to
believe.
The case in favour of Hume then is watertight. But
Christians try to undermine it nonetheless. If people in authority tell you
often enough that the truth is to be doubted they can stop you feeling and
seeing the full force of what Hume said. And Christians deploy that tactic. They
desensitise themselves and others.