The Miracles: History or Myth?
Sisyphus ·
April 17, 2012 at 4:41pm
In particular, let's focus on Christ's miracles, so famously redacted in Jefferson's reworking of the New Testament. I was raised in a church that knew the miracles were historical. At a modern religious university the doctors of theology poo-pooed the miracles as cultural-religious theater, with many of the magician's tricks known and commonly practiced in biblical times. Jesus of Nazareth played by Penn Gillette and his twelve Tellers.
Pick a side. Take a stand. It's no skin off my back if you go over 200 words.
- Comment (116)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (13)
Comments:
May '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
This is a question about a priori assumptions, not about miracles.
If you start with the assumption that miracles don't happen, voila!, they sure enough didn't -- couldn't have -- happened. The assumption requires an interpretation that the writers of scripture must have been credulous and mistaken....or worse. And if those bumpkins were credulous enough to believe in miracles....well, can you really trust anything they wrote?
If you start with the assumption that a Creator God is, in fact, involved with the story, then, certainly, miracles are possible. The assumption permits an interpretation that the writers of scripture were men just like us; good, experienced, and reliable observers of nature who recognized a departure from the norm when they saw it. This, then, also permits us to consider the rest of what they wrote to be trustworthy, too.
I begin with the latter assumption, so for me, miracles pose no logical problem.
Nov '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
As a matter of fact I sat in on a bible study on this very question led by one of said "university Doctors of Theology" -- a member of the faculty of Vancouver School of Theology, a largish two-denomination seminary affiliated with UBC, back in the late 1970s, in which he went through the Jesus-walking-on-water incident as it being a foggy evening and the disciples not realising at first they were near the shore; Jesus was standing on rocks and the boat drifted over to him, and they were surprised.
I asked him if he got this from the text or from his own fertile imagination, and he insisted it was there in the text, cloaked in language easily misunderstood by our culture. So I said "the gospel writer knows that Jesus is only standing on rocks and they are at the shore, but he's using language that clearly indicates wonder and awe associated with a miracle? So you're saying that the Gospel writer is lying to us! So much for 'the gospel truth'". No, he insisted, not lying, just using colourful language. It's a literary device.
Colour me skeptical ... of that pitiful attempt.
May '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
I share Hitchens' view on miracles, which is to say Hume's view. In his Fora.tv debate with Al Sharpton, Hitchens said the following with regard to miracles:
What's more likely in the event one claims to have witnessed a miracle or discerns the testimony of someone who claims to have witnessed one: that such a miracle did occur, i.e., the physically impossible was rendered possible, or the viewer was under a misapprehension? Which is the more sensible supposition? I think the latter clearly is.
Jun '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Well, I happen to be partial to miracles, but you've really hit me square between the eyes on this comment. An Al Sharpton/Christopher Hitchens debate? I can't even watch, but if Hitchens didn't make mincemeat out of Sharpton, then surely THAT is a miracle, right?
May '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Tom, I think you attempt to defend one unsupported assumption by committing to another unsupported assumption. Sure, if one assumes the existence of a divine creator who can perform miracles, then the possibility of miracles is affirmed. But then you task yourself with defending the antecedent assumption, i.e., the god assumption.
May '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Here's the video.
Aug '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
There is a reason that questions of faith and questions of empirical evidence are often at odds. Paul understood this when he provided the definition of faith in his letters.
" 1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
2For by it the elders obtained a good report."
Faith is hope. It is hope in the truth of miracles. It is not necessarily a firm committed belief that they occur. In life, one must be skeptical of claims of the witnessing of miracles -- even scriptural claims -- otherwise one risks being fooled by charlatans.
Personally, I have faith. I am a devoted Catholic. But I am also someone who understands that I cannot "know" with empirical truth that the miracles of the Bible occurred as miracles. I have faith that they did. I believe that with God they are possible. I believe in their truth, but I don't "know" it.
As for the God assumption, acquisition of faith is typically based in either tradition or a "night of fire." One is only valid if the tradition is valid, the other is non-replicable and not useful for pursuit by material metaphysics.
Dec '11
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
This is my off beat take. People who do not believe in miracles have no trouble believing in Star Trek or science in the future being able to do "miraculous things". People can walk on water if they have an anti-gravity shield but if it is a miracle it is not possible. The anti-miracle crowd cannot image God so God is a human creation. Miracles are human tricks. Is the concept of God so hard to understand? Why are they so closed-minded? They are "puritanical" in their "orthodoxy".
May '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
How many theists have claimed that God is unintelligible?
May '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Michael Labeit:
What's more likely in the event one claims to have witnessed a miracle or discerns the testimony of someone who claims to have witnessed one: that such a miracle did occur, i.e., the physically impossible was rendered possible, or the viewer was under a misapprehension? Which is the more sensible supposition? I think the latter clearly is. · 2 hours ago
How does one even begin to evaluate the likelihood of an event whose very definition is that it is impossible except in the extraordinary circumstances of divine intervention? There is no such thing as "likelihood" for such an event. God chose to do so, or he did not. There are no probability equations governing God's behavior.
These events are so far historically removed from us that it's practically impossible to evaluate their truth scientifically (e.g. by evaluating circumstantial evidence). As far as I'm concerned, this is purely a matter of faith. One can choose to accept them as true or not (which doesn't affect their veracity, of course). My impression from past conversations is that you're somewhat of a positivist, so you would decline to believe them without affirmative evidence.
Jul '11
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Everywhere you look the miracle of the universe confronts us, the heavens, the earth, the plants, the animals, mankind. The tiny perfection of a small child, the wonder you feel watching your spouse asleep next to you, the beauty of a sunrise or sunset, the majestic might of a storm. With the constant glory of all these everyday miracles happening around us somehow some people think a small thing of a virgin birth or a man walking on water is just too much to believe? Seriously?
May '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Mr. Galt, I think you'll find that your idea of a miracle is very different from many people's. Profound or emotionally moving experiences are grand, but they are relatively commonplace, highly subjective, and not disputable. Events that defy the known laws of physics are something else entirely, and that's what we're talking about here.
May '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Mark Wilson
How does one even begin to evaluate the likelihood of an event whose very definition is that it is impossible except in the extraordinary circumstances of divine intervention? There is no such thing as "likelihood" for such an event. God chose to do so, or he did not. There are no probability equations governing God's behavior.
I think you've made this unnecessarily complex. There is no evidence as far as I'm concerned for the occurrence of miracles. There is an abundance of evidence for the claim that miracle accounts are examples of misapprehension, deception, etc. Suppose now one claims to have experienced a miracle. No prior evidence will support this view and all prior evidence will suggest that it too is a misapprehension, deception, etc.
Apr '11
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
You guys all know the joke about the San Francisco atheists who drilled their son from the cradle, "There is no God. There is no God." Certain they had done their best for him, they proudly sent him off to the first day of kindergarten. When he came home, he asked, "Does God know we don't believe in Him?"
May '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Mark Wilson
My impression from past conversations is that you're somewhat of a positivist, so you would decline to believe them without affirmative evidence.
I wouldn't use the term positivist. Bad Ayers connotation.
Jun '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Which concept of God did you have in mind?
Jun '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Michael Labeit
There is an abundance of evidence for the claim that miracle accounts are examples of misapprehension, deception, etc. Suppose now one claims to have experienced a miracle.
Such as? What is the "evidence" you rely on to show that any of the miracles described in the Gospels were examples of misapprehension or deception?
Jul '11
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
@Mark Wilson: I see, so God must perform a miracle to your specifications and standards? A little presumptuous of you is it not? I think my idea of a miracle is just fine. I am suggesting that your definition of a miracle maybe a little restrictive. When you consider that the vast amount of the universe is cold empty lifeless space and a while back there was a big bang then things happened till we get to here and now with all the things mentioned in my previous post. This is the miracle. Virgin births and water walking sons are just a trival part of it, and trying to prove god's existence based on this trivia is quite silly.
Dec '11
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Brian Watt
Which concept of God did you have in mind? · 8 minutes ago
The basic concept that there can be a non-corporeal powerful being that can create, destroy, or change matter. This maybe a poor analogy but here goes compared to germs a human would be godlike in our abilities. A person can kill millions of germs or help grow millions of germs.
Does a germ believe in me?
Does what I do look like miracles to the germ?
Does what a germ believe affect my actions?
Dec '11
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Michael Labeit
How many theists have claimed that God is unintelligible? · 1 hour ago
How many atheists have claimed that God is incredible?