The eminent atheist philosopher, Dr. Keith Parsons, recently defended Hume's critique of miracles.
I think Dr. Parsons is wrong on both his main assumptions: (1) the prior probability of the resurrection is, I think, pretty high, and (2) the evidence given in the NT for that event is remarkably strong. I don't see how these two points could be adequately explained in less than a book, though: I will not try to do it here.
I was, though, intrigued by these comments:
"How low can I reasonably put my priors for the occurrence of an event that I regard as physically impossible, like resurrecting a dead body? Well, pretty much as low as I like. If I want to put it at one in a million, I can put it at one in a million. Show that I can’t. Prove that this would be unreasonable. If you can’t (and you can’t), then that is the burden of proof you have to meet: one in a million."
Does this mean Dr. Parsons is that confident that his honesty and clarity of thought are superior to those of intelligent believers who have thoroughly examined the evidence for miracles, or who have experienced them themselves, critically examined those experiences, and come to the conclusion they were real? Or who have examined the evidence for God in general, and concluded that it is solid? He thinks there is a less than one in a million chance that they have observed accurately or thought more clearly, than that his own view of the universe could be wrong?
I wonder if one could justify such self-confidence on any objective grounds? Beginning, perhaps, with a theory of evolution that would bless one man with such vast cognitive superiority over his fellows, in a single generation?
I hope this doesn't sound too sarcastic; I am serious about the question.
Does this mean Dr. Parsons is that confident that his honesty and clarity of thought are superior to those of intelligent believers who have thoroughly examined the evidence for miracles, or who have experienced them themselves, critically examined those experiences, and come to the conclusion they were real?
ReplyDeleteHere is a partial list of things which intelligent believers -- some of them with advanced academic degrees -- claim to have experienced, critically examined, and concluded were real:
* Bigfoot
* Abduction by extraterrestrials
* Levitation
* Ghosts
* Fairies
* Mermaids
* Conversing with the dead
* Dowsing reliably for water, pipes, or what have you.
* Accurate prediction of future events using anything from tea leaves to the bumps on someone's head
* Astral projection (traveling out-of-body to remote places and back)
* Bleeding statues and weeping paintings
* Manifestations of the Virgin Mary rendered in tacos, pizzas, grilled sandwiches, grimy windows, and pee-stains on concrete bridge supports
* Voices telling them to kill people
* People living for decades (or centuries) without consuming food or drink
* Working systems for always winning at roulette or craps
* Telepathic conversation with friends, relatives, and pets
* Photographing "thoughts" by pointing a camera at their eyeball
Those of the above for which physical testing is possible have been tested and found wanting, yet the believers still believe.
Where the only evidence is anecdotal, the claim must remain in doubt.
Doesn’t the question about the probability or improbability of miracles completely miss the point? It seems to get asked over and over though I think it’s an obvious red herring. The question isn’t whether miracles are probable, improbable or even utterly impossible. The question is whether God exists. If he does then the possibility of miracles is 100%. Whatever God commands can and will happen. If there is no God then whether miracles happened of not is utterly mute. Miracles are either an expression of God’s will or they are nothing at all.
ReplyDeleteDr. H: I'm sorry, but I don't follow your logic. No one, to your (highly fallible) memory, has yet physically isolated a ghost. Therefore there is no more than a one in a million chance that Jesus could have risen from the dead? Is that what you're arguing?
ReplyDeleteBill: Well, yes, that is the big question. And I think I brought it up in the OP.
"No one, to your (highly fallible) memory, has yet physically isolated a ghost. Therefore there is no more than a one in a million chance that Jesus could have risen from the dead? Is that what you're arguing?"
ReplyDeleteOh David, don't be dense.
Your article attacks Parsons for misplaced confidence -- you say so in the title. You then go on to strongly imply that "intelligent believers who have thoroughly examined the evidence for miracles, [...] who have experienced them themselves [and] critically examined those experiences", are therefore correct in comming "to the conclusion they were real".
I merely pointed out that any number of intelligent believers have done the same thing with any number of crank issues/phenomena and therefore concluded that they were "real".
The operative term in both cases is believers. But belief doen't determine whether or not something is real; factual objective evidence does.
We lack such evidence with regard to someone being dead for three days and then coming back to life. Therefore Dr. Parsons' confidence in his interpretation is not misplaced. Indeed, I think he's being positively magnanimous in setting the odds against the Resurrection being real at only one in a million.