How do atheists explain Eucharistic Miracles

[MPat]

It appears that you are somewhat skeptical of Buddhist and Hindu miracles?

It “appears”?

That is, you can’t find anything to show that, but it is what your argument requires?

But it is still a miracle for the Buddha to ascend into heaven, is it not?

If one Catholic priest raises questions about a miracle claim, does that mean that the miracle never happened and that the eyewitnesses were deceived?

Who are you responding to?

I said nothing about something being or not being a miracle. I said that, miracle or not, the event you mentioned looks like showing off, for no other reason to do that was given. And it does not look like something a Buddhist sage is supposed to do.

And someone disbelieving miracle at Fatima is not analogous to what I was talking about. I said that it was not clear if the presented “miracle claim” was truly meant as a claim that miracle has happened, or if it was, to cite “Mikado”, “Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.”.

I wanted to hear how Buddhist authorities interpret that text, or, at least, how individual Buddhists interpret it, but I did not get a straight answer from the only Buddhist available in that thread.

Since I did not care enough to hunt for a second Buddhist, my tentative conclusion, based on the very limited evidence, is that, in that case, a miracle has not been claimed.

There are Hindu miracles also, even posted on you tube. For example, Lord Krishna appeared in a cloud after a storm.

Then, presumably, in those cases miracles have been claimed.

And…?

Do you expect me to have a strong opinion about them…?

But, in fact, only atheists have a reason to have strong opinions about all miracle claims.

Opinion of religious believers concerning miracle claims from other religions is closer to this:

But I’d suggest that it’s rather much to expect outsiders to be too bothered about ‘phenomena’

His error, by the way, is that things are very different for atheists.

For how many explanations do we, Catholics, have for “potential miracle”?

1. It could be a true miracle done by God (or angels).
2. It could be something done by an evil spirit.
3. It could be something done by an illusionist.
4. It could be something not meant to look like a miracle, but misinterpreted.
5. The ones reporting the event could be mistaken.
6. The ones reporting the event could be lying.
7. The ones reporting the event could be just using literary device not meant to be taken that seriously.

And it often makes little difference which one is true.

But atheists can accept neither option 1 nor 2 (and they rarely consider option 7).

And thus they have to “debunk” each claim, to show (or to declare loudly and confidently) that one of the options 3 to 6 was in play.

And they imagine that religious believers act likewise.

But we do not.

 

[IWantGod]

How do atheists explain Eucharistic miracles

In any way except that it actually happened.

 

[MPat]

You have no way to KNOW which alleged miracle “actually happened” and which didn’t.

If we really can’t know anyway, we might as well guess, and then our guess is at least as good as yours. In fact, it is going to be better, for in that case Pascal’s Wager applies. And we are going to apply it, while you are not.

But, anyway, let’s probe further.

You say that human reason can’t be relied to reach truth, knowledge in this case.

Do you believe that human reason can be relied to reach truth, knowledge in other cases?

 

[MPat]

Yes.

Is that an answer to “Do you believe that human reason can be relied to reach truth, knowledge in other cases?”?

You did not quote anything (by the way, I would recommend quoting a bit more), thus that is not entirely clear…

If you use Pascal’s Wager for miracle evaluation you will by default accept all claims which I think if dangerous and foolish.

And…?

Do you have anything more than your unsupported opinion alone?

For if you do not, I can just say that the option you choose (rejecting everything by default), is cowardly and foolish, and that will be perfectly adequate.

Not to mention that 1) you did not say what makes you think that Pascal’s Wager would lead to acceptance of all claims, and 2) Pascal’s Wager clearly minimises average danger (for it maximises average profit), thus my opinion is already at least somewhat supported, while yours is not.

 

[AlNg]

Do you believe that human reason can be relied to reach truth, knowledge in other cases?

Sometimes, but not always. For example, using human reason, some will say that dropping the atom bomb on japan was justified, others will use human reason to show that it was not justified. Using human reason, some will say that affirmative action programs are fair. But others using human reason will say that affirmative action programs are unfair.

 

[Freddy]

MasterHaster:

You have no way to KNOW which alleged miracle “actually happened” and which didn’t.

If we really can’t know anyway, we might as well guess, and then our guess is at least as good as yours.

Are there any Christian miracles that you have decided are not valid?

 

[MPat]

Sometimes, but not always. For example, using human reason, some will say that dropping the atom bomb on japan was justified, others will use human reason to show that it was not justified. Using human reason, some will say that affirmative action programs are fair. But others using human reason will say that affirmative action programs are unfair.

So, then which would be your claim:

1. Would you say that the problem is that human reason is often impeded by something (ignorance, dishonesty, pride, incompetence etc.), and we simply have to do our best to remove those impediments, and then reason would reach truth?
2. Or would you say that the problem is that even unimpeded human reason is not capable of reaching truth (with, perhaps, very rare exceptions, like “I exist.”)?

Are there any Christian miracles that you have decided are not valid?

Ah, no cheating!

Didn’t you notice that he said Pascal’s Wager would lead to acceptance of all miracle claims…?

He said nothing about “Christian miracles”.

Also, remember: there are three main possibilities: accepting, rejecting and suspending one’s judgement. Sometimes it is reasonable to suspend judgement. And sometimes (for example, when one has a deadline to make a decision, and passing the deadline will automatically result in one of the choices) that is not reasonable (perhaps even impossible), it is reasonable to just guess.

 

[Mijoy2]

The Atheist probably explains them the same way protestants explain them. It’s not just atheists who disbelieve Eucharistic Miracles and other “Catholic” claimed miracles.

 

[AlNg]

So, then which would be your claim:

1. Would you say that the problem is that human reason is often impeded by something (ignorance, dishonesty, pride, incompetence etc.), and we simply have to do our best to remove those impediments, and then reason would reach truth?
2. Or would you say that the problem is that even unimpeded human reason is not capable of reaching truth (with, perhaps, very rare exceptions, like “I exist.”)?

Sometimes 1, other times 2.
Take for example the case of 10 people in a sinking boat. the boat will not sink with 9 aboard, but will sink with 10 aboard. If nothing is done the boat will sink and all will die. No one volunteers to jump out into stormy waters. Is the captain justified in shooting one person and throw him overboard to save nine or is it wrong to murder one to save all the others. Is it better to let all die or is it better to kill one to save nine. Some will use human reason and conclude that it is better to kill one and to save 9. Others will use human reason and say it is better not to kill an innocent person and it is too bad if all 10 die, but that is unavoidable because the end does not justify the means. Or take the example of capital punishment. Some will say it is justified, others will say not. In each case they are using human reason to come to their conclusion.

 

[MPat]

Sometimes 1, other times 2.

That is not a valid answer, since the questions themselves talk about many cases, not merely one.

You are saying “Sometimes it is often X, sometimes it is almost always not X.”…

If “sometimes”, then not “often” and not “almost always”. Make a decision.

And if you want to say you are not sure, have courage to say so!

There is nothing dishonourable in that!

Take for example the case of 10 people in a sinking boat. the boat will not sink with 9 aboard, but will sink with 10 aboard. If nothing is done the boat will sink and all will die. No one volunteers to jump out into stormy waters. Is the captain justified in shooting one person and throw him overboard to save nine or is it wrong to murder one to save all the others. Is it better to let all die or is it better to kill one to save nine. Some will use human reason and conclude that it is better to kill one and to save 9. Others will use human reason and say it is better not to kill an innocent person and it is too bad if all 10 die, but that is unavoidable because the end does not justify the means. Or take the example of capital punishment. Some will say it is justified, others will say not. In each case they are using human reason to come to their conclusion.

How is that relevant?

You did not even mention anything about being or not being impeded.

So, are you simply assuming human reason is not impeded while discussing questions like this?

 

[AlNg]

Make a decision

I have to know the specifics of the case. Each case is different.

That is not a valid answer,

I disagree because your question is general. Some cases will fit answer 1, other cases may fit answer 2.

have courage to say so!

It has nothing to do with courage. It has to do with the specifics of a particular case under consideration.

How is that relevant?

The examples I have given show that even the best and most thoughtful people can disagree on what answer human reason will give in some particular situations. Take capital punishment. Some will use human reason to say it is justified; others will use human reason and say it is not justified.
Similarly with miracles. Some will say it is a natural event; others will say it is supernatural. Both claim to use human reason.

 

[MPat]

I disagree because your question is general. Some cases will fit answer 1, other cases may fit answer 2.

And the question is which of those, in your opinion, is typical, more common.

“Some cases will fit answer 1, other cases may fit answer 2.” is not an answer to that question.

Also, while you say “Some cases will fit answer 1, other cases may fit answer 2.”, you gave several examples where, presumably, you think reason cannot be relied to find truth, but no examples where it could be.

The examples I have given show that even the best and most thoughtful people can disagree on what answer human reason will give in some particular situations.

How do you know that you have identified “the best and most thoughtful people” correctly?

Maybe, in fact, they are all on one side (with the ones you count among “the best and most thoughtful people” on the other side being incompetent, dishonest or something), and you are mistaken in thinking that “the best and most thoughtful people” disagree?

Presumably, the answer will also indicate who are those people, in your opinion, - just about everyone? Just about everyone with PhD? Just about everyone famous? Just about every Nobel Prize winner?

Does that depend on the question?

That’s why I asked “are you simply assuming human reason is not impeded while discussing questions like this?”, and I do not see a straight answer.

 

[AlNg]

How do you know that you have identified “the best and most thoughtful people” correctly?

Just about everyone with PhD? Just about everyone famous? Just about every Nobel Prize winner?

Yes. It would be. Because there are nobel prize winners who are Muslims and there are Nobel prize winners who are Jews. Both are reasonable and yet each has come to a different decision as to which religion to adapt.

I do not see a straight answer.

Because as explained above, the question is not straight because it is too general to admit a single answer that fits every case.

you gave several examples where, presumably, you think reason cannot be relied to find truth, but no examples where it could be.

For an example as to where reason can be relied upon take the case of using reason to show that in euclidean geometry, the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal.
I hope that helps.

 

[MPat]

Because as explained above, the question is not straight because it is too general to admit a single answer that fits every case.

The question quite explicitly is which of them fits most cases.

Anyway, I think I did get an answer indirectly:

For an example as to where reason can be relied upon take the case of using reason to show that in euclidean geometry, the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal.
I hope that helps.

Yes, it helps.

It means that your answer is that you believe reason can only be relied for Mathematics (perhaps broadly construed - including various kinds of Logic etc.). Otherwise you would have chosen a different example.

But then, isn’t that belief causing you problems elsewhere?

For let’s see:

Yes. It would be. Because there are nobel prize winners who are Muslims and there are Nobel prize winners who are Jews. Both are reasonable and yet each has come to a different decision as to which religion to adapt.

Ah, but the matter of Nobel Prize winners being reasonable does not belong to Mathematics, even very broadly construed!

And thus, if you are right about abilities of human reason, you can’t know if Nobel Prize winners are reasonable. But that’s what supports your “knowledge” of abilities of human reason!

That’s the problem: your “knowledge” about abilities of human reason is based on things that you can’t possibly know if that “knowledge” is true!

Thus by retorsion (applying something to itself, in this case to the supporting propositions) we can know that this your “knowledge” about abilities of human reason is fake.

 

[jack63]

I find the question is a little moot. I don’t believe in atheists, which sometimes annoys my atheist friends. Matthew 6:5…“And when you pray…”. We all pray! I see atheism as coming from failures in religious institutions.

My experience is that a group of non-judgemental sincere Christian friends without expectations, a few glasses of wine, a good meal, and a sweet smile from a member of the opposite sex would turn the coldest atheist heart.

 

[AlNg]

your “knowledge” about abilities of human reason is fake.

Well, I tried to help by giving examples of why one answer does not fit all cases.

It means that your answer is that you believe reason can only be relied for Mathematics

Of course, there are other examples, besides mathematics where reason can be trusted to some extent. Take for example the case of the eradication of polio. After a program of vaccination, the number of polio cases has dropped. It is not unreasonable to believe that vaccination played a role in decreasing the number of polio cases.

which of them fits most cases

When you say most cases, how many cases are you talking about?

 

[MPat]

Well, I tried to help by giving examples of why one answer does not fit all cases.

Sure. And…?

It is not unreasonable to believe that vaccination played a role in decreasing the number of polio cases.

Wait, wait, wait… “It is not unreasonable to believe”?

That does not sound like a claim that one can know that.

Not to mention that the distance to “All Nobel Prize winners are [always?] reasonable.” is great even from this “outpost”.

So, let’s reiterate: what makes you think that you know that “All Nobel Prize winners are [always?] reasonable.”?

Or is it that you believe that without knowing why?

 

[Neithan]

I would highly encourage you (and all naturalist skeptics who like your post) to read John Polkinghorne’s Science and Providence: God’s Interaction with the World. Consider why God would create a freely developing material order* if he would regularly and significantly interrupt that process.

[*In theology, the inspired meaning of Genesis 2:2]

 

[AlNg]

Or is it that you believe that without knowing why?

i thought it was you who brought up the question of PhD and Nobel Prizewinners?

we can know that this your “knowledge” about abilities of human reason is fake.

Take a look at the question of capital punishment. Can you explain why it is fake to say that some favor it while others do not?

 

[PickyPicky]

Consider why God would create a freely developing material order* if he would regularly and significantly interrupt that process.

Yes, although even more in need of explanation would be regularly and insignificantly interrupting that process, which was the point I was making.