The Problem of Miracles: A Critique of Atheistic Presumptions

Introduction

Atheism, as a philosophical position, relies heavily on empirical evidence and rational inquiry to dismiss the existence of God or a higher power. However, in doing so, atheists often overlook or dismiss the possibility of miracles, citing their rarity or alleged impossibility in principle. This critique argues that such an approach is methodologically unsound and neglects the complexities of miracle claims.

The Rarity Argument

Prominent atheist thinkers like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens argue that miracles are unlikely because they contradict our understanding of natural laws and occur infrequently. Dawkins writes, “Miracles, by definition, violate the principles of science” ([1]). However, this argument relies on a flawed assumption: that rarity or uncommonness necessarily implies impossibility.

  • Counterexample: The discovery of gravitational waves in 2015 was an extremely rare event, yet it confirmed a fundamental aspect of Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Rarity does not preclude the possibility of an event; rather, it may indicate our limited understanding or observational bias.
  • Probability and Bayes’ Theorem: When evaluating miracle claims, we should consider Bayesian probability theory, which updates probabilities based on new evidence. Even if miracles are rare, the probability of their occurrence is not zero. We must weigh the evidence for each specific claim, rather than dismissing them outright due to rarity.

The Impossibility Argument

Atheists like Bertrand Russell argue that miracles are impossible in principle because they violate natural laws and the uniformity of nature ([2]). However, this argument relies on a narrow understanding of causality and neglects the complexity of miracle claims.

  • Causality and Agency: Miracles often involve alleged divine intervention, which challenges our understanding of causality. If we acknowledge the possibility of agency beyond human comprehension, we cannot rule out miracles a priori.
  • The Limits of Naturalism: Our understanding of natural laws is provisional and subject to revision. It is hubris to claim that we have exhaustively mapped the boundaries of reality, especially when considering the mysteries of quantum mechanics or dark matter.

The Burden of Proof

Atheists often argue that believers must provide empirical evidence for miracles, while they themselves bear no burden to disprove them. However, this approach overlooks the inherent difficulties in verifying miracle claims and the need for a more nuanced understanding of evidence.

  • The Difficulty of Verification: Miracles, by definition, involve extraordinary events that may not be replicable or observable. This does not mean they did not occur; rather, it highlights the challenges of empirical verification.
  • The Role of Testimony and Experience: Personal testimony and subjective experience play a crucial role in many miracle claims. While these may not meet the standards of scientific evidence, they cannot be dismissed as irrelevant or unreliable.

Conclusion

In conclusion, excluding the possibility of miracles based solely on their rarity or impossibility in principle is methodologically unsound. Atheists must engage with the complexities of miracle claims, acknowledging the limitations of our understanding and the provisional nature of natural laws. By doing so, we can foster a more nuanced discussion about the existence of God or a higher power.

References:

[1] Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

[2] Russell, B. (1910). Philosophical Essays. Longmans, Green, and Co.

Quotes:

  • “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” - Carl Sagan
  • “The universe is not only stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.” - Albert Einstein