To start, nothing in science and little in our experience fits with miracles. Further, we can explain belief in miracles based on psychology, i.e. the human mind can hold on to beliefs and ideas despite indications to the contrary - a course in miracles. We also know that errors and self-supporting biases readily enter into historic accounts, especially those like the New Testament that represent decades of oral transmission. Finally, lacking any scientific laws, ancient cultures often cast unexplainable phenomena as spiritual actions.
Thus, we can provide logic that miracles have a low likelihood.
But we must review this logic with a critical eye. This logic, like most reasoning, rests on a set of postulates. That this logic does so, does not undermine the logic by itself. Rather, that the logic extends from postulates requires that we scrutinize the postulates.
And bluntly, the postulates behind the above logic arise from a particular world view. For discussion, and with a bit of fracturing, I will label that world view as a secular, naturalistic construct/paradigm. In that world view, science provides the superior path to knowledge, the mind explains mankind's thoughts and consciousness, and appeals to the unobservable (e.g. supernatural) should be viewed with caution.
And that is fine. Such a world view holds great credibility, and can and does provide accurate guidance for our actions and thoughts. But it is still a world view. What is the issue? Again, bluntly, world views - any or all world views - do not represent truth; rather they represent inductive conclusions from our experience. They begin with mankind's accumulated thought and knowledge, and, based on inductive generalization, extrapolate out to overarching postulates.
Thus, we can provide logic that miracles have a low likelihood.
But we must review this logic with a critical eye. This logic, like most reasoning, rests on a set of postulates. That this logic does so, does not undermine the logic by itself. Rather, that the logic extends from postulates requires that we scrutinize the postulates.
And bluntly, the postulates behind the above logic arise from a particular world view. For discussion, and with a bit of fracturing, I will label that world view as a secular, naturalistic construct/paradigm. In that world view, science provides the superior path to knowledge, the mind explains mankind's thoughts and consciousness, and appeals to the unobservable (e.g. supernatural) should be viewed with caution.
And that is fine. Such a world view holds great credibility, and can and does provide accurate guidance for our actions and thoughts. But it is still a world view. What is the issue? Again, bluntly, world views - any or all world views - do not represent truth; rather they represent inductive conclusions from our experience. They begin with mankind's accumulated thought and knowledge, and, based on inductive generalization, extrapolate out to overarching postulates.
Comments
Post a Comment