Given a specific memory or experience, how would you estimate the probability of it being true ?
If I detect no contradictions with other memories or experiences, I treat it as true until some evidence is provided to show that it may be false. I imagine that would count as a very high prior.
No, but this seems highly likely, given what we know about basic biology (and we do know quite a lot, down to the molecular level). That said, if you are making the positive claim that corpses decay at different rates based on the morality of the deceased, then the burden of proof is on you, since your hypothesis is more complex than the null hypothesis.
Pity.
Unfortunately, I can provide no data in support of the hypothesis, either. You’re right about the burden of proof; but I don’t think I’m quite ready to go around digging up dead bodies to try to produce a proper answer to this question just yet. And a quick and very cursory google search has failed to pick out anyone else who’s tried.
I am unfamiliar with this specific miracle, but Wikipedia says that it was reported to occur “around 700”, and that at least one source confirms the items in question to consist of human tissue. I don’t mean to sound too negative, but… is this really the best evidence for the existence of miracles that you’ve got ?
It’s the best that I can find in, oh, half a minute on Wikipedia. It’s quite probably not the best that there is.
If so, then shouldn’t you be—just for example—a Hellinist instead of a Christian, given that we’ve found the entire city of Troy, which was described in the Iliad ? That’s an entire city, after all, not just some blood globules...
We also know where Egypt is. And Bethlehem. And Nazareth. All of which were placed mentioned in the Gospels (and in the case of Egypt, it’s an entire country, not just a city). The existence of a place mentioned in ancient writing is, at best, very weak evidence that the writing is true.
The blood globules have nothing to do with my belief in Christianity. They’re just the best evidence that I can find, in a very brief visit to Wikipedia, that at least one miracle occurred at some point in the past.
Right, so it’s starting to sound more and more that the Christian God is kind of like my hypothetical Alpha-god. He may exist, but the actions he takes are so subtle that no one has been able to detect them.
No. Plenty of people claim to have been able to detect them; all the people who saw the Miracle of the Sun, for example. There may have been millions more people who could have detected His actions, had they just looked in the right place, but they didn’t. (That was likely intentional; omniscience means knowing where people won’t look for tampering, after all).
By comparison, we are at the point now where we can detect individual neutrinos. Given this, I’ve got to go back to my original question: does it even matter whether such a god exists, if he has an even smaller effect on our affairs than neutrinos do ?
Detectability is not necessary correlated with how much effect something has on our affairs.
In the same way as it’s reasonable to assume that humans and centipedes, living in the same environment on the same planet, would evolve similar body structures?
Yes, that’s a pretty good analogy. Both organisms have respiratory and digestive systems; articulated legs for means of locomotion on hard surfaces; optical/chemical/tacticle/etc. sensors; and even sexual reproduction systems (which serve similar functions despite being mechanically very different).
Similarly, I would expect any kind of an intelligent life to have a similar grasp of concepts such as object permanence, causality, and communication (just to name a few off the top of my head). Of course, if these aliens have any kind of technology, then I’d expect them to have notions of e.g. physics and chemistry that are compatible with ours.
If I detect no contradictions with other memories or experiences
That’s the same method I use, except that I also include other people’s experiences. For example, I’ve personally never tried jumping off a bridge; but I am reluctant to try this, since, based on what I know of biology, physics, and, indeed, attempts to do so by other people, I know that the experience will likely be fatal.
I think that the main difference between you and me is that you place an extremely high level of confidence on your own experiences. Is that right ? If so, what is the reason ? After all, you are a regular human just like anyone else, so what is it that makes your experiences so much more reliable than those of other people ?
You’re right about the burden of proof; but I don’t think I’m quite ready to go around digging up dead bodies to try to produce a proper answer to this question just yet.
Since the burden of proof is on you; and since no evidence exists; are you not then compelled to disbelieve in the proposition ? By analogy, it is possible that I personally am immune to the effects of jumping off of a bridge, but, in the absence of evidence for this positive claim, I am forced to reject it (despite its obvious appeal).
They’re just the best evidence that I can find, in a very brief visit to Wikipedia, that at least one miracle occurred at some point in the past.
What makes you think that the best explanation for all the fact is, in fact, “a miracle occurred”, as opposed anything else ? Given that other events (honest mistakes, deliberate fraud, etc.) occur much more often than miracles (i.e., they have higher priors); and given that the evidence is compatible with all of these explanations; why do you keep the “miracle” explanation and discard the others ?
There may have been millions more people who could have detected His actions, had they just looked in the right place, but they didn’t… That was likely intentional...
Wait, doesn’t this support what I said ? It sounds like your God does indeed make his actions “so subtle that no one has been able to detect them” (as I put it originally), just like my hypothetical Alpha-God.
Detectability is not necessary correlated with how much effect something has on our affairs.
How can something be completely undetectable and yet have any effect on anything ? Effects are how we detect things.
That’s the same method I use, except that I also include other people’s experiences. For example, I’ve personally never tried jumping off a bridge; but I am reluctant to try this, since, based on what I know of biology, physics, and, indeed, attempts to do so by other people, I know that the experience will likely be fatal.
At the moment I, too, am reluctant to try jumping off a bridge, for similar reasons. However, if I had jumped off a bridge and inexplicably survived, I would weigh that experience very heavily in future decisions with regard to whether or not to jump off bridges.
I don’t ignore other people’s reported experiences; I just consider my own experiences a far more reliable indicator of reality. This is partially because other people’s experiences are by necessity incomplete; it’s very hard for me to be sure that someone else has told me every detail that I would consider important about a given situation.
Since the burden of proof is on you; and since no evidence exists; are you not then compelled to disbelieve in the proposition ?
No. I am merely in no position to compel your belief in the proposition, and etiquette requires that I should not claim that the question is resolved in my favour. (Which it isn’t). My options at this point are to either go out and gather evidence, or to drop the question entirely.
As I understand it, etiquette does permit you to assume that the question is resolved in favour of the null hypothesis; but without proof, you cannot compel my disbelief in the proposition.
What makes you think that the best explanation for all the fact is, in fact, “a miracle occurred”, as opposed anything else ? Given that other events (honest mistakes, deliberate fraud, etc.) occur much more often than miracles (i.e., they have higher priors); and given that the evidence is compatible with all of these explanations; why do you keep the “miracle” explanation and discard the others ?
I don’t discard all the others; I simply consider them less probable than the miracle hypothesis. And the reason for that is that a number of people whose job involves the investigation of miracles, and who have looked far more deeply into the matter than I have (and who would not benefit from incorrectly calling something a miracle and having it later revealedd as a mistake or a fraud) consider it a miracle. In short, I place my confidence in the hands of those I recognise as experts in the field.
That said experts were also largely members of the Catholic clergy does not diminish my confidence in their results, though it may affect yours.
There may have been millions more people who could have detected His actions, had they just looked in the right place, but they didn’t… That was likely intentional...
Wait, doesn’t this support what I said ? It sounds like your God does indeed make his actions “so subtle that no one has been able to detect them” (as I put it originally), just like my hypothetical Alpha-God.
No. Again, people have detected His actions. Consider Moses, for example; when Moses approached the burning bush, he detected God’s actions.
Or consider the monk present at the Miracle of Lanciano; when he saw the bread and wine literally transform into flesh and blood, he detected God’s actions.
Detectability is not necessary correlated with how much effect something has on our affairs.
How can something be completely undetectable and yet have any effect on anything ? Effects are how we detect things.
If it is completely undetectable by any means, then yes, it can have no effect. But something can be hard to detect while still having a great effect.
Consider, for example, a man living on a mountaintop. He finds it very easy to detect the stars; he sees them often. But they have little to no effect on him. On the other hand, he finds it very hard to detect the radioactivity of the rocks around him (he would need to go to the trouble of getting a geiger counter); but if the rocks are signifiantly radioactive, that could potentially have a very large long-term effect on him.
So, while I agree that something has to be detectable in order to have any effect (on the basis that it can be detected by its effect), it is nonetheless possible for something to be hard to detect while having a very large effect.
If I detect no contradictions with other memories or experiences, I treat it as true until some evidence is provided to show that it may be false. I imagine that would count as a very high prior.
Pity.
Unfortunately, I can provide no data in support of the hypothesis, either. You’re right about the burden of proof; but I don’t think I’m quite ready to go around digging up dead bodies to try to produce a proper answer to this question just yet. And a quick and very cursory google search has failed to pick out anyone else who’s tried.
It’s the best that I can find in, oh, half a minute on Wikipedia. It’s quite probably not the best that there is.
We also know where Egypt is. And Bethlehem. And Nazareth. All of which were placed mentioned in the Gospels (and in the case of Egypt, it’s an entire country, not just a city). The existence of a place mentioned in ancient writing is, at best, very weak evidence that the writing is true.
The blood globules have nothing to do with my belief in Christianity. They’re just the best evidence that I can find, in a very brief visit to Wikipedia, that at least one miracle occurred at some point in the past.
No. Plenty of people claim to have been able to detect them; all the people who saw the Miracle of the Sun, for example. There may have been millions more people who could have detected His actions, had they just looked in the right place, but they didn’t. (That was likely intentional; omniscience means knowing where people won’t look for tampering, after all).
Detectability is not necessary correlated with how much effect something has on our affairs.
...you make a very good point here.
That’s the same method I use, except that I also include other people’s experiences. For example, I’ve personally never tried jumping off a bridge; but I am reluctant to try this, since, based on what I know of biology, physics, and, indeed, attempts to do so by other people, I know that the experience will likely be fatal.
I think that the main difference between you and me is that you place an extremely high level of confidence on your own experiences. Is that right ? If so, what is the reason ? After all, you are a regular human just like anyone else, so what is it that makes your experiences so much more reliable than those of other people ?
Since the burden of proof is on you; and since no evidence exists; are you not then compelled to disbelieve in the proposition ? By analogy, it is possible that I personally am immune to the effects of jumping off of a bridge, but, in the absence of evidence for this positive claim, I am forced to reject it (despite its obvious appeal).
What makes you think that the best explanation for all the fact is, in fact, “a miracle occurred”, as opposed anything else ? Given that other events (honest mistakes, deliberate fraud, etc.) occur much more often than miracles (i.e., they have higher priors); and given that the evidence is compatible with all of these explanations; why do you keep the “miracle” explanation and discard the others ?
Wait, doesn’t this support what I said ? It sounds like your God does indeed make his actions “so subtle that no one has been able to detect them” (as I put it originally), just like my hypothetical Alpha-God.
How can something be completely undetectable and yet have any effect on anything ? Effects are how we detect things.
At the moment I, too, am reluctant to try jumping off a bridge, for similar reasons. However, if I had jumped off a bridge and inexplicably survived, I would weigh that experience very heavily in future decisions with regard to whether or not to jump off bridges.
I don’t ignore other people’s reported experiences; I just consider my own experiences a far more reliable indicator of reality. This is partially because other people’s experiences are by necessity incomplete; it’s very hard for me to be sure that someone else has told me every detail that I would consider important about a given situation.
No. I am merely in no position to compel your belief in the proposition, and etiquette requires that I should not claim that the question is resolved in my favour. (Which it isn’t). My options at this point are to either go out and gather evidence, or to drop the question entirely.
As I understand it, etiquette does permit you to assume that the question is resolved in favour of the null hypothesis; but without proof, you cannot compel my disbelief in the proposition.
I don’t discard all the others; I simply consider them less probable than the miracle hypothesis. And the reason for that is that a number of people whose job involves the investigation of miracles, and who have looked far more deeply into the matter than I have (and who would not benefit from incorrectly calling something a miracle and having it later revealedd as a mistake or a fraud) consider it a miracle. In short, I place my confidence in the hands of those I recognise as experts in the field.
That said experts were also largely members of the Catholic clergy does not diminish my confidence in their results, though it may affect yours.
No. Again, people have detected His actions. Consider Moses, for example; when Moses approached the burning bush, he detected God’s actions.
Or consider the monk present at the Miracle of Lanciano; when he saw the bread and wine literally transform into flesh and blood, he detected God’s actions.
If it is completely undetectable by any means, then yes, it can have no effect. But something can be hard to detect while still having a great effect.
Consider, for example, a man living on a mountaintop. He finds it very easy to detect the stars; he sees them often. But they have little to no effect on him. On the other hand, he finds it very hard to detect the radioactivity of the rocks around him (he would need to go to the trouble of getting a geiger counter); but if the rocks are signifiantly radioactive, that could potentially have a very large long-term effect on him.
So, while I agree that something has to be detectable in order to have any effect (on the basis that it can be detected by its effect), it is nonetheless possible for something to be hard to detect while having a very large effect.