A miracle is supposed to be a sign from God to show that God's message or religion is true and takes the form of a magical event an example of which would be Mary appearing at Lourdes two thousand years after her death. Or Jesus when he rose from the dead.

David Hume wrote,

The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish....' When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.

End of quote.  It only tells us that evidence for miracles cannot outweigh the evidence that human nature lies about miracles and makes mistakes.  It is easier to lie about seeing an angel than to see one. 

A living witness who you know and can question may override any old book reporting miracles.  If that witness says they have visions that Jesus was a fraud and they passed all the tests then the gospels have to be thrown out.

If you respect our thinking ability and our psychological wiring you will take that position.  If you do not, then you don't really care if miracles are true but you just want to act as if they are and get others to do the same.

Nobody looks enough at the psychological miracles in the gospels.  Pilate was ruthless to genocidal proportions yet he is shown as reluctant to have Jesus put to death.  If Pilates' behaviour was so miraculous what other miraculous out of character things were happening?  Maybe even some Jewish leaders stealing the body from the tomb to start a resurrection narrative?

Jesus not being arrested by the Romans if he were a popular leader in case there would be an insurrection would be very strange.

Judas seeing Jesus' miracles and still daring to be betray him would be inexplicable.

Strange psychologies or miraculous ones definitely matter more than anything else in the gospel narratives. 

Christians argue that the resurrection of Jesus really happened because the timid apostles changed into courageous messengers of the gospel in response to meeting him alive and well. That falls apart if we have a gospel where people were behaving insanely.  Or is it miraculously as regards psychology?  The argument depends on the apostles being normal but who encountered the Risen Jesus.

The gospels, even the first one, Mark is very fond of supernatural wonders.  The samples include Jesus raising the dead and exorcising.

These crude pagan-style wonders could be a distraction from those mental and emotional "miracles." 

How does that work?  Well we like movie style wonders.  They get our attention.  Religion needs to distract us for it depends on us thinking of the witnesses and apostles as people like ourselves.  If we don't think that we won't relate to them and their message will be scrapped. 

If we cannot apply the normal rules of psychology and human nature to the witnesses of Jesus' wonderous acts then we have a new reason for going down the David Hume road.  It robs us of methods for testing if they were sincere and reliable.  If you cannot know how a person got into a psychological state then tests are useless.  Hume said it is too easy for a testimony to lie or be wrong anyway,  but gospel "psychology" takes that to a new unprecedented level.


No Copyright