Archive for the ‘Miracles’ Category

Recently, an article entitled “Does Science Really Have Laws?” appeared on Dinesh D’Souza’s AOL “News Bloggers” Blog. The article is an attempted defense of the existence of miracles, written by my all-time favourite person in the whole world: Dinesh D’Souza.

Summed up, the article explains Hume’s problem of induction, and uses this argument in support of the existence of miracles. The problem of induction explains how the scientific method (or any type of empirical knowledge) can never lead to metaphysical truth, due to all empirical knowledge being falsifiable¹. In theory, this is a good epistemological argument, but in practice, it is irrelevant, because nobody cares about metaphysical truth. Gravity is reliable to the extent that we no longer worry about it failing one morning. We can never conclusively prove without a shadow of a doubt that gravity will always continue to exist, and behave the way it does right now, but we have a pretty good reason to believe that it will continue to do so and therefore act under that assumption.

Is there a possibility (no matter how tiny) that the laws of physics will suddenly reverse themselves tomorrow? Yes; however, it is statistically improbable (“impossible” in common parlance) and we wouldn’t be around to appreciate it anyway. Furthermore, whereas there is no epistemological reason to believe that the laws of the universe will remain constant, we have yet to observe them change, so I suggest that the burden of proof is on Mr. D’Souza to prove the existence of these changes, and therefore the existence of the miracles that he believes exist. If the laws of the universe changed on a daily basis, then I would have more of a reason to believe D’Souza; but sadly, this is not the case.

Of course, the irony of D’Souza’s post is that Hume, in the same paper, wrote specifically about the problem of miracles. Simply put, he believed that testimony or observation (when it could be trusted, which he did not believe was often — if ever) leading to belief in a miracle could only be considered valid proof of a miracle if the opposite (i.e. the negation of the testimony or observation) belief more unbelievable than belief in the miracle. This is similar to Occam’s razor, and essentially means that a miracle can only exist insofar as it is the simplest (i.e. results in the fewest new assumptions) possible explanation for the observed events.

So not only has Dinesh D’Souza re-iterated a centuries old argument against inductive reasoning, which doesn’t even prove the existence of miracles, but he neglected to read the part of the very same essay that proved his argument to be incorrect. I’m sorry Dinesh… better luck next time.

—

• Does Science Really Have Laws?

It should be common sense that staring into the sun may not be the best of ideas.  Doing so can very well result in damaged or loss of eyesight.  So what would it take to incite dozens of adults to stare into the sun long enough to lose it completely?

Well, religious superstition, of course.

At least 50 people in India have lost or damaged their eyesight after staring into the sun, hoping to see the Virgin Mary…  And that’s only so far.  Despite the obvious dangers and growing number of casualties to this Virgin Mary in the sun folly, believers are reportedly STILL staring into the retina-burning star in the hopes of (ironically) seeing something.

Excerpt:

Forty-eight cases of sight-loss, allegedly caused by photochemical burns on the retina, have been recorded at St Joseph’s ENT and Eye hospital in the region since Friday.

Despite warnings, and the potentially harmful effects of their actions, believers are allegedly still flocking to a hotelier’s house in Erumeli near where the divine image is said to have appeared.

“All our patients have similar history and symptoms… They have developed photochemical, not thermal, burns after continuously gazing at the sun,” Dr Annamma James Isaac, the hospital’s ophthalmologist said.

Link.

Recently, I’ve been thinking as to the criteria that would cause me to accept the existence of an intelligent god that interacted with humans.

So here’s my challenge to God: start answering prayers. More specifically, start answering the prayers of sick people. If everybody¹ with some sort of disease, who prays to God to be healed, is instantaneously healed of that disease (without medical intervention, of course), I would take this as pretty conclusive proof that there is some sort of really powerful, if not omnipotent, God (if not some other powerful intelligence watching us).

The ball is in your court, God.

Imagine traveling somewhere in the Pacific, only to have your boat sink, leaving you cast away on a deserted island with no help in sight. You survive the first few days on recovered rations. Once you run out, you’re truly on your own. You hunt tooth and nail for food. You dig for fresh water. You live for months, perhaps even years, knowing that help may never come, and that any cut or scratch could potentially become dangerously infected, resulting in the loss of a limb or your very life.

And yet, somehow, you manage to survive. Finally, a boat is seen off in the distance, heading your way. You’ve made it; You’ve been rescued.

Now, how would you feel if your hard work and determination were discredited as a reason for your survival? Instead, someone you’ve never heard of, or have at least never met, with no possible connection to your misfortune or your retrieval, is thanked for your safety?

Though I realize this is a pretty convoluted scenario, I do have a point to make: Through hard work, dedication and a great deal of strife, wouldn’t you prefer to be afforded credit for your own accomplishments? I assume (I’m not a sociologist) that most people would. I, too, would. That’s why words like “miracle” leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Of course, due to its ubiquity, “it’s a miracle” is oftentimes used merely as a meaningless exclamation. I can’t ignore, however, its use as a literal attribution of someone’s survival to providence; To, quite literally, say “God saved you.” First, and most obvious of all, if God had this degree of power and a will to use it, he/she would have to be a sadist to allow that person to undergo a life-threatening situation only to later save him/her, rather than prevent the situation from occurring altogether (and if the Book of Job were anything to go by, that would be the case).

Second, and more importantly, to offer credit to whichever deity you prefer for someone’s survival is to take the credit away from those who actually deserve it.

That’s how, as the brother of a truly courageous cancer survivor, the word “miracle” becomes downright offensive. To thank an invisible man in the sky says nothing of one’s own courage, strength, and dedication. It also says nothing of the doctors who keep us healthy, or whose work may one day save our lives. Even worse, it implies that whichever authority ruling over us, if there were one, would use its power not to keep us from harm, but to allow us to suffer, and to only save a select few thereafter.

I’m an atheist. I no longer make any effort to conceal that fact… and this is only one of the many reasons why I am so. Regardless of our shortcomings, our mortality or our insignificance in the presence of a massive universe, ultimately, humans are what truly matter- Humans who are capable of far greater compassion and good than what you’d find in any religious text. Even if there were sufficient empirical evidence to support the existence of a God (which, frankly, there isn’t), I still doubt I’d, in good conscience, devote myself to a being so sinister.

If I were to, that would certainly be miraculous.