Here is a revision of an essay I wrote about miracles entitled Miracles
and Christ which I forwarded to some sceptical organisations some years ago.
There is no faith without evidence for faith involves seeing that
something is likely to be true. The Christian
religion must have evidence that Jesus was the infallible Son of God if it is
right to believe in him. Without it
they would just be saying that they are right for they wish they were right! That is obviously not belief for who could
sincerely agree with that twisted logic?
It would be extremely unethical for a religion to expect people to
suffer for conjectures and Jesus taught that if you are not persecuted for
your Christian faith you are doing something wrong.
Miracles are acts contrary to the usual workings of natural law or acts
according to some definitions that are natural but beyond our understanding
of nature. In other words, an event
like blood coming from the eyes of a statue without trickery would be a
miracle or a statue coming to life.
The Bible never gives a definition for miracle which it would have
needed to do before it could expect us to believe in its miracle tales.
Reports of miracles from people who can’t define them don’t mean a
thing. The definition is the most
important thing. What would be the
point of telling people there is a God for example if you don’t give them
some idea of what God is? Same
principle.
In fact, the definitions that deny a miracle is against nature don’t
change the fact that miracles may be a violation of natural law. In that
case, miracles disprove God’s existence because no rational God will make
natural laws and break them as if he didn’t set up the laws right in the
first place and needed to change them.
Christians object that miracles don’t necessarily mean that but how do
they know? Christians make an
assumption about miracles that they are exceptions to natural law and
exceptions prove the rule and not violations.
And in the light of that, they assume that miracles are signs of God’s
love and presence. They say they
believe in God and religion because of miracles which is a lie. It is because of what they have assumed
about what a miracle is. And even if
miracles are exceptions to the rule they are certainly not exceptions that
prove the rule. Exceptions only prove
the rule when you understand why they were made. And we don’t know why God does what he
does. So they are back where they
started. The only possible definition
for them is that miracles are God changing his laws because he didn’t have
them set up right in the first place!
Miracles are a violation of natural law. If miracles were possibly violations of
nature but not necessarily it still remains true that when a miracle happens
it lessens our faith in natural law.
This is evil for the stronger our perception and acceptance is of
natural law the better.
Miracles are contradictions. For
example, we know that those who have died stay dead. Then Christians come along saying that
Jesus rose from the dead! They say
this is not a contradiction for it would be a contradiction if Jesus was said
to be dead and also risen. But its not
words we are worried about here but what it is in practice and what it is as
good as, a contradiction. Is there any
practical difference between one, nobody rising from the dead and Jesus
rising and two, the idea that people don’t rise but God made Jesus rise from
the dead so he was an exception?
Practically you can’t tell the difference between one and the
other! In other words, if you see Jesus
rising from the dead how do you know that this rising was compatible with the
law that people don’t rise or not? The
Christians could be supporting a contradiction though they think they are
not. Their interpretation makes no
difference. Let us explore this. Christians say they reject one. So they are saying that all people that die
stay dead unless God who has the power to restore life does so. Is that any help? No – they say a man rose
from the dead. They cannot make it
into a non-contradiction by interpreting it as one. If I state that 1=2, I can admit that it is
a contradiction or say that there is some yet undiscovered sense that it is
true. If I take the latter approach I
cannot make it into a non-contradiction.
If it’s a contradiction my interpretation isn’t going to change
that.
The person who considers a contradiction to be a non-contradiction is
no better than the person who says that a contradiction is true. If the doctrine that miracles happen, is
urging people to stoop that low then the doctrine is advocating evil and
irrationality. It’s evil to deny the
law that something cannot be true in the same sense at the same time and also
untrue. If believing in a miracle
makes you no better than a contradictory person then miracles are not
signs. How can they be when they
oppose sense? If miracles are
irrational then it is rational to reject miracles as signs or even their
existence. To say that miracles happen
would be the same as saying that if God does them then he is evil.
Those who deny that a miracle is a
contradiction have to confess that a miracle is a possible
contradiction. For example, if Jesus
rose from the dead and people don’t rise then this may be a contradiction or
it might not. Is it ethical to
endanger rationality by advocating belief in what may be contradictions? No!
Miracles lessen the authority of reason and commonsense. If a miracle happens, religion uses reason
to verify the miracle and to work out what God was trying to say to us by
doing the miracle. So miracles
undermine the very thing that underpins them!
Thus miracles are absurd and evil.
Those who reject religious dogma often make the mistake of thinking
that they have to prove that miracles don’t happen to justify
themselves. This is incorrect. It is sufficient to prove that even if
miracles happen they don’t imply that any religion is true or that God
exists. It is enough to know that if
they proceed from a personal supernatural being at all they proceed from a
liar. So we ought to just ignore what they say.
What is the evidence that the Christians present to persuade us that
Jesus Christ was indeed the Son of God and to be obeyed without
question? The Church argues that the
miracles of Christ help prove that he was who he said he was, the revelation
of God.
Miracles are signs of God’s love and power
according to the Church.
If God heals a sick child miraculously and
suddenly in front of witnesses then the miracle shows that God loves and
wants to heal the child and show the witnesses that he loves and wants them
to come to the truth. Naturally if
miracles are signs they have to take place in a religious context.
God healing the child proves nothing about
God loving the child at all. An amoral
God would heal. So the miracle happens
to show that God has power. Moreover,
if miracles only happen in one religion they do not necessarily show that
religion to be true even if the clergy say they do. An amoral God might perform miracles only
in one religion. When the religion is
still left to assume that miracles happen to show that God is lovingly
directing people to show them the one true religion – so they are still left
guessing so it follows that the miracles are a waste of time. If miracles are signs of God’s love and we
have to assume that they express God’s love then they are not signs. If we see Jesus appearing in the sky
telling us to obey the pope his Vicar on earth, we can ignore him with a
clear conscience for miracles are not signs.
And as for them showing God’s power, no sensible God would do them
just for that. An amoral God
might. But who cares if an amoral God
has power or not?
The resurrection of Jesus would prove that he was the Son of Satan if
it had really happened. It is madness
to take the claims of the gospels about Jesus’ miracles seriously when they
come from a cult that has always openly advocated dishonest thinking. I mean that Christianity condemns wilful
doubt as a sin after you believe. This
bans sincerity for if you are sincere you don’t mean any harm and if you are
insincere you are not really doubting.
The gospels agree with this fanatical fascism and that is reason
enough for refusing to take them seriously and to be confident that the
authors were dishonest for if doubt is to be avoided so is objectively no
matter how many things ring true for their attitude was no minor flaw but a
foundation one. It had to colour all
they did and wrote and had to be very serious indeed. Real belief is honest and unafraid of the
truth and of criticism. Jesus said that
we must agree with him to be saved and that we will go to burn in Hell
forever if we don’t (John 3,8:21) – what stronger hatred towards unbelievers
could be possible? They were the
injured party for heaven’s sake! How
could dishonest men be chosen by God to speak of a holy man who committed no
sin? They show that Jesus must have
been shifty too.
Miracles pull people into religion not by reason but by appealing to
their feelings and faith based on feelings not evidence is the stuff from
which religious bloodshed is made. The
fact that the vast majority of people would not have the skills necessary to
avoid being duped or misled is proof of that.
Even the Catholic Church will admit that most devotees of miracles
inside the Church have been misled for the Church only accepts a small number
compared to the total of reported miracles and visions as being of divine
origin. The Devil then could do a
miracle exactly like how God would do one and even draw some people to
eternal salvation in order to block the progress of a larger number. The Church claims to be reasonable and to
be the true expression of rationalism.
The Church says that we rationalists are not really rational. Therefore the Church will have to say that
anybody who follows feelings not faith or feelings more than faith is being
manipulated by the Devil.
When Mary appears at
If miracles are signs then they are signs that God has the power to
help all suffering on earth. If people
suffer then it is for his will. He
plans to bring some good out of it which is why he lets it happen. So the suffering then is not bad for its
needed for a greater good. This
repulsive idea refuses to see how terrible human suffering is and proves that
miracles encourage evil disguised as good.
A good person sees suffering as totally bad. There is something vulgar about a clergyman
who has an easy life holding that a country full of starving babies is
somehow lucky.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No miracle gives us such evidence. Christians say the principle is wrong for
lots of things happen are extremely improbable and we don’t demand
extraordinary evidence for them. For
example, it was unlikely for Napoleon to have been born where he was born
considering that the world is so big.
And you don’t demand extraordinary evidence for that. True – why should we? He had to be born somewhere. What they choose to miss here is this. We do not need evidence for where Napoleon
was born but we do need evidence for miracles. We do not need extraordinary evidence
before we believe where Napoleon’s birthplace was. If we wanted to argue that Napoleon was
born of a virgin by a miracle we would need extraordinary evidence for
that. They are deploying trickery
here. Though it is true that it is
improbable that Napoleon should have been born at all it is different from
the improbability of his being born of virgin. This principle is so simple and well-known
that the likes of William Lane Craig denying it in The Case for Faith (page 88, 89, Lee Strobel, HarperCollins,
Zondervan,
Craig in The Case for Faith
has the nerve to say that a miracle must take place in a religious context to
be a miracle. Otherwise if the Queen
of England died and rose again without a religious context it wouldn’t be a
miracle but just an anomaly (page 91).
If this happened it would show that violations of natural law that God
had nothing to do with happen. If we
can’t trust nature then how can we trust that miracles are exceptions to
natural law for you would need a strong faith in natural law before you could
come to such a judgement or determine if a miracle has happened?
It makes no sense to say that the queen rising is not a miracle. Of course it is – its still a suspension or
changing of natural law. Why should
her rising be an anomaly and the rising of Jesus be a miracle just because
the latter took place in a religious context?
Craig would probably believe that events on a par with the queen rising
do happen, alien abductions and apparitions of monsters at Loch Ness. Even if such events didn’t occur and he
believed that, in order to believe that miracles were signs, he would have to
necessarily hold that miracle like events outside the religious context were
not miracles but strange events or anomalies.
So belief in miracles from God then requires you to have this stupid
attitude towards these strange events or anomalies should they occur. That means that belief in miracles is
itself stupid and bigoted. It is
bigoted because it is saying, “I will believe in events that seem to
contravene nature that only God or a supernatural power can do called
miracles only if they happen in a religious context, even if such events take
place outside that context.” It is
also grossly dishonest. It means, “I
only regard events as miracles if they suit my prejudices”. That is the kind of people we trust if we
believe in their reports about miracles!
And again if the religious context is needed then what religious
context? Catholic, Protestant, Mormon
or Islamic? The religious context
doctrine really means something like this, “I will only accept miracles as
signs from God should they fit the religious context I like. If I am a Protestant I will believe in the
miracles reported by my Church and if the Catholic Church produces miracles
even better one I am going to pay no heed to them and refuse to believe in
them.” By introducing belief in
miracles into his cult, Jesus Christ quenched genuine charity. Charity and miracles are incompatible. If you were fair and cared about the truth
you would not be adopting only the miracles that fitted what you wanted to
believe. It is totally disrespectful
towards people of other faiths and shows what you really think of them deep
down.
God being almighty does not make mistakes so miracles, changing the way
nature works say by making the Virgin Mary appear, are done to make people
see what the true religion is. But the
very fact that he needs miracles to persuade people shows that he does make
mistakes. If he had organised the
spread of the word of God better and made people brighter and more
interested, just by giving us the same brain faculties that very religious
people have that cause their religiosity, when it comes to religion more than
anything else there would be no need for the miracles for after all the faith
has to make sense and be the most credible faith on earth for otherwise all
the miracles of the day are of no assistance.
If miracles are meant to convert us to what religion calls the truth,
its teachings, then why do we just do and think what will gratify us? We do not believe in religion unless we get
pleasure from it - even if it is just the pleasure of believing something
because you are afraid to deny it for God will get you if you do - so God should
change our feelings to get us to accept doctrines for we can’t help our
feelings anyway if he wants us to believe.
Miracles deny that there is a God for they speak of supernatural
incompetence.
All miracles are malignant and unfair because you are more sure that
pain exists than you are that a miracle happened and miracles call you to
suffering on the grounds of religious faith, all religions say you have to
suffer to obey them. So you undergo what
is certain, suffering, for what is of inferior certainty. This is still true if you have seen the
miracle yourself and yet the miracle asks you to trust in a revelation
suggesting that we need help from above to determine right and wrong and
cannot do it ourselves meaning doing what you are told matters more than
stopping the pain. It is even worse to
take a miracle or revelation seriously when you have not seen it so people
reporting miracles are making you evil.
Miracles are accused of saying natural law is not always the same and
so that it is not really law and that this is a criminal suggestion. Believers agree but dissent in saying that
nature has to have laws before natural law can be changed to allow a miracle
to take place. But the effect, which
is what counts, is the same so when it is bad to oppose belief in the
stability of natural law it is bad to accept miracles as true.
They say a miracle is not a contradiction and that to say Jesus rose
from the dead is not a contradiction for a contradiction would be to say
Jesus was dead and risen in the same way at the same time. It is bad to believe in what contradicts
itself for we are made to be reasonable logical people and need logic to help
the world. They are only guessing that
miracles are not contradictions for they still might be. For example, it would be a contradiction to
say Jesus rose from the dead if there is no power to raise him up. It is better not to believe in what may be
a contradiction for you don’t want to have anything to do with
contradictions. You don’t need to
believe in the resurrection so it is evil to believe in it. It is better to assume that miracles are
hoaxes or tricks of nature. Whatever
they are they are certainly bad and no good they do can justify them for they
attack the foundation of good which is reason and wrong ideas produce wrong
behaviour. You have to assume that
miracles are possible before you can say a miracle has happened. You are using an assumption to resolve a
contradiction which is irrational.
Only reason can resolve contradictions not assumptions.
David Hume was right that a miracle is such a strange event that it
needs better evidence than anything else would need for the stranger and more
unlikely the event looks from our perspective (after all only a handful see
miracles) the more evidence we justly require for it. For example, suppose a bizarre natural
event like a volcano starting up in your garden you would need to see it with
your own two eyes rather than believe even reliable people when they tell you
about it. You can’t risk making a fool
of yourself by believing them. This is
far more true of a miracle which is a crazier event. Nobody has the right then to ask you to
believe in their testimony that a miracle happened for when nature works
according to fixed laws nearly all of the time if not all and a miracle
changes that law then the miracle is a very unlikely event.
You never know if it is strange and unknown natural laws did the
miracles which means they are not miracles or if it was the
supernatural. Miracles cannot be
intended to convince you that the supernatural exists when you need to assume
that miracles are supernatural.
Assuming is no good for it’s the same as guessing. You might as well assume the supernatural exists
without seeing miracles or hearing of them and if that is allowable miracles
should not be happening for they would need to happen for very serious
reasons and God would only be doing them as a last resort. The miracle is not as important as its message
so when you can assume you have to let others assume what they like even if
it is that a brand new faith is true.
You cannot use miracles as evidence for God or religion. You cannot believe their message just
because you were given it but you have to use your head to see if the message
is plausible. In that case, God should
not have been doing the miracle but simply discreetly giving you the light
that you need. Miracles would indicate
that whatever is doing them is an incompetent stupid force. Miracles should not be found to be sources
of comfort.
There is no need to believe that God does any miracles. All the Christians can say is that we
should for he might be doing miracles that we have heard of. Maybe the Devil, who likes to look good,
does them all and for some mysterious purpose known only to himself. The Devil could do loads of good healing
miracles just so that freethinkers might attack religion more so you never
know if the source of a miracle is good or bad. Maybe it’s a good-hearted god but one who
does not see much value in honesty.
Why assume it is God? Assuming
is no use and any miracle that asks you to do it is definitely of the Devil. If assuming is okay then you may assume
that the feats of top magicians are really miracles.
When scientists disagree on what is inexplicable and on what kind of
God or not exists or indeed if any exists according to their experiments it
warns that allegedly scientifically verified miracles are still not worth
believing in. You should only believe
in a miracle as a last resort when you have eliminated the possibility of
lying or mistakes having been made.
Few of us can be a match for the scientists for it is all so
complicated and so we can’t know who is right.
Believers might say that science has verified that an event was
inexplicable. But no scientist can say
it was a miracle for inexplicable does not equal miracle. It only means they don’t know why it
happened. Unusual things do happen and
we still have much to learn. Science
used to say lightning was inexplicable.
What happens is a religion tells you that certain inexplicable events
are miracles and miracles are evidence that its message is true when all it
is doing is assuming that miracles have happened and are from a reliable source
like God. It is saying that the
inexplicable is a miracle when it seems to have happened to support its
theology and is just inexplicable but not a miracle when it does not - this
system is sheer fraud and deception for it is rigging the evidence. In that case miracles cannot count as
evidence at all and it is a waste of time bringing scientists in to
investigate. Religion is only guessing
therefore no sensible God would waste time doing miracles just for that! It is all a con.
God wants us to listen to him not men but when it is men who decide if
a miracle really came from him it is clear that they get the benefit and the
power and they can filter the word of God.
If men for example wanted to promulgate a false revelation that
Muhammad was the real saviour they could cover up and get a dubious miracle
authenticated to seem to verify that.
This is as bad in effect then as listening to them and not God. Belief in miracles is just belief in the
people who say they have seen them or checked them and found them believable
and not in God just as belief in a document probably written by Napoleon is
not the same as belief in Napoleon for you did not see Napoleon write
it. Miracles imply then that you
should be the slave of religious leaders and cranks and see God the way they
want you to see him as if he does not matter and they do. Miracles destroy spirituality and though
they might speak of God they oppose him.
We agree with them that God should be opposed and his wishes trampled
on like pearls before swine. The
revealer is always more valuable than the revealed for you see the revealed
through their eyes. When you worship
God you are really worshipping them instead of God by proxy and they love it.
If a miracle is a sign from Heaven that a doctrine is true and tests
persuade you that a miracle has taken place then you believe the miracle
happened more strongly than you believe the message for the message cannot be
tested like that and you can’t prove the message was given as reported. When miracles are more interested in
getting you to believe in miracles than in the message it is clear that
miracles are just a deity childishly showing off. The answer that God can’t do anything else
and that it is a Hobson’s Choice is wrong for there are plenty of other
easier bad ways to get a message across.
It is sectarian arrogance to say that miracles which indicate that say
the Roman Catholic Church is true are real miracles while the ones reported
by rival religions are trickery. To
say miracles are pointers to the truth is saying just that. It is also arrogance to say that miracles
point to the one true faith because there would be many unreported miracles
that do not support this faith.
Frankly, anybody using miracles to make his religion win the argument
is a liar.
Using miracles as pointers to the true gospel results only in chaos for
competing miracle claims can and do cancel each other out. Anybody could fake a few books that they
perhaps said they transcribed from an angel in visions that speak of another
dying and resurrecting saviour who condemns Jesus as a fake and seem credible
for the same reasons that religious nuts say they find the gospels
credible. All they need then is a few
sworn affidavits from two or three others who are generally trusted but who
have a crafty side to say the angelic visitations occurred. It isn’t overly hard to authenticate false
miracles for we authenticate loads of things that are not true. Those who say miracles authenticate their
religion are simply telling you to trust them and nobody else which is
thoroughly nasty.
You have to work out the theology without obvious miracles but with the
help of the inspiration of God before a miracle can verify it so what do you
need miracles for? Even miracles
cannot make nonsense to be non-nonsense so their message needs independent
checking. So miracles are random and
arbitrary though they don’t look it.
Therefore man who says he did not kill his wife though he was caught
holding the gun and that the gun miraculously fired could be telling the
truth. They weaken our faith in human
testimony – the very thing they depend on!
(They contradict themselves!)
If you assume that miracles like that don’t happen then you are saying you will only believe
miracles if they fit your presuppositions which is very biased and unfair and
dishonest. It would not be right to
jail that man if there is any doubt of his guilt so miracles get you marked
as an evil person if you do.
Revelation is when God tells us something. Even if it is just him discreetly planting
a thought in your mind it is still a miracle so when miracles are bad news
revelation is even more so. The Bible
belongs in the fire then just for claiming to be the word of God.
It is believed that if a miracle results in conversions and repentance
that these good fruits prove that God was behind it. The very fact that all believers hold that
fruits show this, proves that the miracles promote the bad fruit of deception
for it is wrong and self-righteous to appeal to the fruits. Jesus said that it is by their fruits you
know the true prophets from the false.
Miracles are not doing a good thing for they attract people to a faith
that they would not believe in if they knew it properly which few people
do. And Jesus said that sincere people
do their good works in private so if miracles result in good fruits that
means the people are disobeying this rule and showing off. So the good fruits are really bad
fruits. All false miracles have
seemingly good fruits – eg, the fraudulent apparitions of Bayside which
claimed that Paul VI had been kidnapped and replaced by an impostor. When an event happens there are good direct
consequences and bad direct ones and the same holds true for the bad and
neutral consequences – therefore to boast that a miracle was from Heaven
because of its fruits is just sheer madness and arrogance and deceptiveness
for nobody can really know for it is too complicated. The failure of the fruits argument to help
proves that you cannot show that a miracle was really a force for sufficient
good so you cannot repose your faith on it.
Its failure shows that the goodness is just as bad as the goodness
that comes from taking a e-tablet. The
fruit is mostly bad. When so many
people find the attraction to religion that results from miracles disturbing
it shows that believers just care about their spiritual thrills and not about
whether miracles might be harmful.
When most of us live without seeing miracles and so without the fruits
it is clear that it is best to assume they are bad. What is so special about miracle mongers
that we should take their claims seriously?
Who do they think they are?
The most important test of a miracle that really came from God would be
the truth of its message. Truth would
be the main fruit for without truth we cannot see what good is or what is
right so all the good results in the world cannot justify belief in a miracle
that is either a hoax or from the Devil but was taken for a miracle from
God. There can be no doubt that the
big attraction about miracles is the good fruits but this itself is a mistake
proving that no miracle can be from God for no miracle seeks to correct this
mistake. It is the fruit we want not
the miracle and who made us like that?
God. It is selfish to value
good from a miracle more than good for itself. Miracles result in vice that looks like
virtue.
The miracles of Christianity are alleged to be the best verified and
they boast about their investigative scientific approach. But these miracles are supposed to bolster
the evidence that Christianity which teaches that the resurrection of Jesus
was the supreme and therefore the best verified miracle ever which is not
true. There are many miracles which
have better evidence than four short books of unknown authorship with loads
of gaps and twelve witnesses whose alleged deaths by martyrdom we can know
nothing about for sure. No God would
raise Jesus who was so evil that he claimed that sinners who die will go to Hell
forever. We see and touch one another
and we cannot be as sure as that that God exists and yet we are expected to
have faith that people we know can go to Hell and this should be approved of
all for this God. When Christian
miracles verify error it is clear that miracles are not signs and should not
be considered as such. Naturally,
modern miracles would be more credible for people know human nature better
and know science better these days.
When miracles have plenty of concern for calling us to prayer and none
for the unspeakable crimes we commit against animals mainly by doing nothing
for them it is clear that this talk about fruits is only sanctimonious
nonsense. It is better to save animals
from suffering than to pray for praying and a good God will be satisfied with
one brief prayer for it is quality not quantity that matters and prayers
offered when you are sinning are worthless and trying to take God for a
fool. The fruits people are saying
they know what good fruits are which is quite an arrogant boast for we rarely
can judge.
The Church says that if you don’t believe in people who testified to
miracles you can’t believe in any human testimony so if you reject the
testimony of miracles you are committing a great sin and are opposing the message
of God. The Church itself rejects most
miracle testimonies or just pays no heed to them which amounts to
rejection. Clearly it cannot be wicked
to disbelieve for any other reason.
This argument has no relevance or value for nobody believes every testimony
and everybody will be sceptical of some testimonies though they look
watertight and that is fair enough.
Therefore if you want to reject a testimony even if you think you see
the Virgin Mary and she is giving you the testimony that is your right and it
is no sin to do that. Miracles then
are not calls to conversion and repentance for they cannot succeed for we
have the right to ignore them. They
are just bizarre. If the Church
argument is true, then we should listen to any and especially what most
testimonies say. Most miracle
testimonies speak of miracles that do not defend any religious system of
doctrine or defend religions that deny that dogma matters or religions and
beliefs which are obviously wrong and harmful. We can live perfectly normal lives and
believe that human testimony is always to be taken seriously except for
miracles for miracles are too fantastic.
Conclusion
Miracles oppose reason and honesty and decency. They are a mark of religious evil.
Friday, 31 August
2007