Craig S. Keener on "Miracles" 1 -- Introducing the Project

Craig S. Keener discusses his new book with Baker Academic: "Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts" (2011).

• Category

  Education

[Grimtheorist]

I agree, he was reporting that people report witnessing miracles, and I'm reporting that people are often times report mistakes. It relates very well to Keener.

Basically, Hume said anything that could be considered a miracle would have to have a uniform experience to go against, otherwise it wouldn't be a miracle (all people with cancer must die, in order for the one that lives to be considered a miracle). Keener essentially shows how people with cancer live, and call it a miracle; a mistake.

[Grimtheorist]

That's the point, if it's only "improbable" then why can't it just be a naturally occuring rare event? What constitutes it being a miracle? The fact that someone prayed for it? The fact that science wasn't there to document it, test it, retest it, and explain it?

As far as we know, ressurection after three days is not possible, so we have no reason to believe that this is connected with any kind of natural law. But even if it was a natural occurrence, what would the divine aspect be?

[pantonal]

Also, you're quite right that people can be very mistaken in attributing certain things to divine action when they are not, though the magician analogy might be a bit off, as all audience members will likely know they're witnessing an illusion when they attend a magic show, but the point is well taken. I'm not sure, though, how it applies to Keener's book. He's just demonstrating that there are extensive eyewitness reports about miracles, as a response to Hume's assertion that there aren't.

[pantonal]

I say "improbable" to show that they are not "violations" of natural law - the alternative hypothesis being that a miracle is a suspension or changing of natural law. And we're talking about HIGHLY impropbable events like cured blindness or resurrection. The divine aspect, best I can tell, would be derived from the association with faith/prayer, or some seemingly important result that aligns with divine will (ex.- the fine-tuning of the universe).

[Grimtheorist]

The first reference is just to show that people can be mistaken about things they experience. Seeing isn't believing. Just because you don't know how it happened, doesn't mean that it's "inexplicable".

What I basically mean by the second comment is "why should we expect that impossible things should be able to happen?" If you just wanna "improbable" definition, then miracles could actually happen in the natural world, at a very low chance. That takes away the divine aspect.

[pantonal]

Just so I'm clear, is the Copperfield reference meant to show that all people who claim to have witnessed a miracle are in fact just "tricked" like the audience at the magic show?

Regarding the second comment, I'm not sure I understand it, but I would say that a miracle is perhaps something highly improbable and set in the context of faith/prayer, rather than a violation of nature or an impossibility. And certainly there are records of highly improbable things.

[Grimtheorist]

I'm not sure there is a percentage number that determines what constitutes truth and fact. For example, take a David Copperfield show. 100% of the audience see's the statue of liberty disappear, but did it really?

Allowing a possibility of miracles is like saying that you are expecting something to be impossible. After all, if a miracle was otherwise possible or explainable, it wouldn't be a miracle. Since we have no record of impossible things being possible, you can't just start assuming.

[pantonal]

Sorry for any false assumptions on my part (full-disclosure: I haven't read it...yet). I agree that individual anecdotes are thin evidence. Would you agree, though, that it is at least difficult to gather "scientific" data on non-repeatable phenomena, aside from the before/after documentation by credible sources case by case? And what percentage of the population would need to be witnesses to the miraculous in order to discard Hume's flat rejection of the POSSIBILITY of the miraculous?

[Grimtheorist]

Perhaps I have read it...

All he really does is show that people DO claim that miracles happen. He's very upfront about the fact that he doesn't do in-depth investigations on any of these claims. He just shows that these are claims. A lot of claims. You can use these claims to start your own investigations, as many scientists have.

There are no scientifically verified reports of miracles, there are only unknowns, and that does not mean a miracle. Just like 1200 pages does not mean proof.

[pantonal]

Hence his 1238 page two-volume book on researching miracles around the world. Please read it, THEN comment.