Peter Kreeft debates the Argument from Desire

[MotherNoRest]

Correction: “(which many have)” should be “(which many BELIEVE THEY have)”. And if it false, then it MUST be ignored.

hmm, a rather arrogant statement - to presume to judge another’s experience. That doesn’t fit well with all your “rational” arguments - to believe you can dismiss another’s “experience.” A bit like telling me that the pain I feel when I break my arm is not really there.

A better rational and systematic way to analyze experiences would be to enumerate them and rate the consistency and nature of the reports, etc. Just about anything except dismissing them as a product of imagination. That’s easy but doesn’t prove a thing.

 

[MotherNoRest]

That quote was from Innoruk - I apparently don’t know how to copy a quote!

Just reading through and felt like weighing in on that one.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Thanks MotherNoRest.

The problem, as far as I see it, with the approach that “people only believe to have had such experiences” is that it seems to imply that their interpretation of their experiences is false. However, we cannot say this a priori. One may argue - as Innoruk has - that Kreeft or Lewis were not in a position to claim that everyone has an inner desire for the supernatural since they did not interview everyone. Fair enough, as far as that goes. But it is likewise unfair to claim that everyone who claims to have had a supernatural experience is wrong or misled for the very same reason!

 

[Innoruk]

Well, isn’t that what I said? I said they have a personal experience which they interpret as one of divine or supernatural origin or connection. The question is: is it more likely to be false than not? If it is, you have to argue that most of the human population is deluded (in some sense) about reality. I don’t think you can ignore a priori.

Most humans are superstitious. Even today. I am amazed at seeing the amount of new-age-type superstitious beliefs. And those superstitions are not alone. How many people believe in poltergeists? Should we give even a temporary credence to those beliefs, just because many people subscribe to them?

Kreeft (following from Lewis, following from Augustine) spoke of an inner yearning for the divine. Obviously he didn’t interview everyone but it seems to be well-documented throughout history.

I don’t deny that most humans are superstitious.

It also helps us to understand to origin of religion and religious behaviour, which is universal among humanity.

However, is there any evidence that this explanation is correct?

Could your aversion to the supernatural perhaps bias your judgements?

Sure, it is possible. Though I am not exactly against some type of continued existence - my aversion is strictly to the christian concept of the “hereafter”.

I think that’s why I hold Augustine and Lewis’ view in some regard - both wanted to run away from God but felt this inner pull.

Well, he sure did not “reel me in”, even when I was a christian.

Huh? On the one hand you argue there’s no such desire, on the other you say that if there is, it’s natural. Why would you believe it is a natural biological desire when our natural biological nor anything in the world can fulfill this desire?

Please rephrase. I have no ides what this sentence means.

 

[Innoruk]

hmm, a rather arrogant statement - to presume to judge another’s experience. That doesn’t fit well with all your “rational” arguments - to believe you can dismiss another’s “experience.”

Since even the catholic church dismisses those “private revelations”, I am in good company. However, I am open to be corrected. Just make sure that the evidence is not the “hearsay” type.

 

[Innoruk]

But it is likewise unfair to claim that everyone who claims to have had a supernatural experience is wrong or misled for the very same reason!

To be skeptical about it is the starting point. Yet, as I said, I am open to see the evidence. Until that point I simply play the percentages. If someone claims that he or she had a supernatural experience, then I have two options: (1) accept the word of that person, or (2) assume that the person is in error. The probability that the person is in error, is overwhelmingly greater than the probability of some supernatural experience - especially since there never was a properly documented event of any supernatural.

So I play the percentages. I suspect that you would do the same if someone would come forth with a claim you find almost impossible to believe (for example if someone claimed that he won 10 consecutive jackpots on some lottery).

 

[prodigalson2011]

especially since there never was a properly documented event of any supernatural.

Given that most supernatural events of the sort being discussed would most likely be transient and materially ineffective, in what way could such an event be “properly documented”, by which I assume you mean empircally documented?

But, on the contrary, I think things like the apparitions at Fatima and the healings at Lourdes have been quite well documented. And the latest research on the Shroud of Turin has proven extremely interesting. There is more evidence than ever in its favor, and some of it is quite damning of any natural explanation. For instance, a team of top-notch 3D designers noticed that the image on the Shroud looked a lot like a compressed 3D map and proceeded to reveal that, in fact, it was and managed to extract a 3 dimensional model of the face from the Shroud. The process was then completely reverse engineered to ensure the accuracy of the extrapolation. The end result was a face whose features are decidedly semitic. Add to this the fact that found on the Shroud was pollen from a plant native exclusively to Jerusalem, the blood stains thereupon are of the same type identified with the Eucharistic miracles (which all match as well), that the area which was carbon dated in the ‘70’s, and seemingly debunked the whole thing, has now been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to have been a restoration, that the weave pattern of the original areas of the Shroud match that depicted in 1st millenia illustrations of Jesus’ burial, and most tellingly that the blood stain patterns on the face of the Shroud match those of the Sudarium of Oviedo (a relic which is said to be the cloth used to cover Jesus’ face between the time he was taken down from the cross until he was buried and whose blood type also matches the Shroud and Eucharistic miracles) and the fact that the Sudarium’s whereabouts have been documented from the middle of the first millenium and the two relics have never, throughout history, been in the same place… take all of this together, and I’d say you have a pretty well documented case for the supernatural.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Thomas Jefferson, a well known liberal and critic of the Catholic Church, likewise adopted the argument of the desire of the many to be drawn toward God as an explanation for creation.

As he said:

"So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite members of man who have existed through all time, they have believed in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe. Surely this unanimous sentiment renders this more probable than that of the few in the other hypothesis.” (Excerpt, letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, April 11, 1823)

Jefferson also liked to play the percentages.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Yes, there are people who refuse to consider that there is “something” out there.

Those who refuse to even consider it are too closed-minded. Do not confuse them with those people who are willing to consider it, and who find the offered evidence insufficient.

Shall we be a bit more broad-minded? Let’s argue from the popularity fallacy. There are six or seven million people alive today. One hundred years ago there were probably three million people alive. Since the beginning of human history, whole civilizations have ceased to exist. Practically speaking, I doubt that those civilizations were in the millions. No matter. The popularity of human nature is a given.

Humans usually act as humans are. The innate sense that there is something different from that which can be observed can be considered as evidence. Of course, there are people who prefer to ignore evidence. Seems to me, that there are people who continue to deny the possibility of a person walking on the moon. Yet, in comparison to the vast majority of people who do consider the possibility of something special beyond the ordinary, the naysayers are a drop in a leaking bucket.

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The scientific definition for that is extraordinary phenomenon.

Quite contrary to the usual saying that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs”, I do not wish to demand special “proofs” for religious claims. I need equal proof (evidence) for ALL claims.

If nothing else, scientific lingo is usually precise.

The scientific description of extraordinary phenomenon is definitely not the same as “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.”

Recently, a newspaper article told of a young woman lifting a car high enough to pull her dad out from under. This news example is often connected with rescuers in physical disasters. In scientific descriptions, phenomenon refers to "an occurrence, circumstance or fact that is perceptible by the senses. (American Heritage College Dictionary, Fourth Edition)

In the car story above, there are two perceptible phenomena. The tool used to jack up the car failed and a man was trapped. Second, the man was rescued. Now, if an Olympic gold medal wrestler had lifted the car, that would not necessarily be an extraordinary phenomenon. But if the young woman was very sick, yet, hearing her dad’s screams, she got up from her bed, raced outside and lifted the car sufficiently-- that would be an extraordinary phenomenon. Once the phenomenon is declared extraordinary, then it happens that physical proofs are sought. Thus, extraordinary can be applied to an unknown natural possibility. Or, as evinced throughout human centuries, extraordinary can lead to God as the explanation especially when people desire to live beyond bodily death. This desire based on super-natural reasoning has been around forever. The first three chapters of Genesis offer reasonable explanations.

In the scientific arena, especially when an extraordinary “miracle” is being examined, the perceptible phenomenon is tested six ways to Sunday. Scientists are normally very careful not to publically claim miracles. Instead, when a physical/material explanation is not available, the simple designation of extraordinary is often given to the perceptible phenomenon. This terminology does not automatically exclude the super-natural. Scientists are very clever.

My specific claim is that human nature has the capability to recognize something beyond our physical/material environment. The evidence is the literature, starting with the first alphabets, that contain references to the spiritual or an *extraordinary *phenomenon. Because I am a rational being (most of the time), I can analytically seek out information about the mysterious spiritual or super-natural. For me, the Catholic Church has the most reasonable, logical explanation for God’s personal interaction with we humans. I treasure the Catholic concept that I can have a personal relationship with an extraordinary being.

Even though I was baptized as a delightful infant, there still came a point in my life when I had to decide for myself if there was a God. I recounted this high school experience in a Letter to the Editor of the original This Rock magazine which is now known as Catholic Answers Magazine. My proof for God’s existence was the most irrational, nonsensical, dump one imaginable. It worked. Though I am not yet a saint, my belief in God has never wavered.

As I look back, it was because of my own human nature that I was able to recognize God. Not only that, my desire was to seek God via the Catholic Church. Yes, I was a teenage member of the Catholic Church, but I had to choose it myself.

Small note: Since there are no elves in my neighborhood that will do things for me, I will have to answer the rest of your post much later. Thank you for being a good discussion partner.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

My specific claim is that human nature has the capability to recognize something beyond our physical/material environment. The evidence is the literature, starting with the first alphabets, that contain references to the spiritual or an *extraordinary *phenomenon. Because I am a rational being (most of the time), I can analytically seek out information about the mysterious spiritual or super-natural. For me, the Catholic Church has the most reasonable, logical explanation for God’s personal interaction with we humans. I treasure the Catholic concept that I can have a personal relationship with an extraordinary being.

I would suggest that even pre-literate human societies show an awareness and belief in the the supernatural. The neanderthals showed great care and concern for their dead, burying adults and children with care and placing flowers with them - which is not something we would expect to see if the purpose of burial was simply to avoid attracting predators (which a hunter-gatherer tribe might even welcome as a potential food source, if they did not feel the bodies of the dead had meaning, and an afterlife.)

I think that the first awareness of human capability for recognition of the supernatural that grannymh describes is what Prof. Kreeft (in this article: leaderu.com/truth/1truth28.html) identifies as one of the pieces of evidence for belief in the afterlife: The Argument from Dead Cow:

The simplest and most obvious of these arguments may be called Primitive Man’s Argument from Dead Cow. Primitive Man has two cows. One dies. What is the difference between Dead Cow and Live Cow? Primitive man looks. (He’s really quite bright.) There appears no material difference in size or weight immediately upon death. Yet there is an enormous difference; something is missing. What? Life, of course. And what is that? The answer is obvious to any intelligent observer whose head is not clouded with theories: life is what makes Live Cow breathe. Life is breath. (The word for ‘soul’, or ‘life’, and ‘breath’ is the same in many ancient languages.) Soul is not air, which is still in Dead Cow’s lungs, but the power to move it.

Life, it is seen, is not a material thing, like an organ. It is the life of the organs, of the body; not that which lives but that by which we live. Now this source of life cannot die as the body dies: by the removal of the soul. Soul cannot have soul taken from it. What can die has life on loan; life does not have life on loan.

The ‘catch’ in this argument is that this ‘soul’ may in turn have its life on loan from a higher source, and transmit it to the body only after having been given life first. This is in fact the Biblical teaching, contrary to the Greek view of the soul’s inherent, necessary and eternal immortality. God gives souls life, and souls can die if they refuse it. But in any case the soul survives the body’s death.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

(cont.)

This was, in a way, one of the experiences that gradually led me back to Faith from atheism. While working as a medic in the service, and later as an EMT, I had occasion to view (too many) dead bodies. There is a qualitative difference that can’t be easily described, nor succinctly stated between the living and the dead. (“He’d dead, Jim!” doesn’t suffice.) There was a husk there on the floor, where before there was something quite different.

The first time I had to witness an autopsy, it was the body of a 15 year old girl who had been stabbed to death by her boyfriend. It was a stupid, brutal crime, and the boyfriend quickly turned himself in and confessed. I watched the medical examiner gradually remove each part of her body, looking for any other signs of other trauma so that he could testify that the stabbing was the actual cause of death. At the end, the dissected remnants were placed back into the body. I was left not only drained by the experience - watching such an procedure on anyone, but especially a child, has that experience on you, whether you pretend to be too hardened to admit it or not - but I felt especially shaken, at an existential level, by the realization that something was missing that was not put back in, and that had already been missing even when the attendant first placed her body on the table.

At a very deep, very emotional level, I now held the belief that there was something that had been there before, something that animated the body and that had looked with love upon her parents and her siblings, and saw and appreciated the sunrise, and that had known fear and happiness and kindness, that could not be explained as simply the sum total of the firings of her neurons, a thing that could not be said to have ceased to exist when her brain stopped functioning. I had always had an intellectual appreciation of Thomas Edison’s claim (looking towards Einstein) that nothing in the universe ever ceased to exist - it changed form, it changed structure, it changed appearance, but nothing can ever disappear. The lifeforce, or the consciousness, or anima, or soul, or whatever you choose to call it, now seemed to me to exist beyond the physical death of the body. I knew at that point in my life that we are more than the sum of our parts. I walked into the autopsy room as a materialist, but left as someone who could no longer be. I left, I suppose, with the awareness of my own soul.

Neither the “Dead Cow” argument, nor the Argument From Desire are “Proofs,” nor are they intended to be. I think for many of us, though, they resonate with us in a way that more intellectual arguments, like say, the Kalaam Argument, do. The great Anglo-Catholic author Anthony Burgess, who wavered back and forth on a belief in God during his life, shortly before his death declared that the Argument from Desire was ultimately the argument that led him to belief. He was a brilliant literary talent, and a polyglot who could read the philosophers in the original Greek, and certainly very knowledgable about theology (which informed most of his novels), but it is interesting that he also found this to be a worthwhile argument, and one worthy of belief.

Emotional arguments are a way to come to know the world and the universe just as well or better than arguments which are (or try to be) strictly based on reason and logic. I can argue that the reason I am attracted to my wife is based on accepted societal standards of beauty, or that the symmetry of her features and the ratio of her physical attributes corresponds to norms that are associated with naturally-selected features that indicate fertility and an enhanced ability to spread my DNA, but none of that is true. I love her because she is lovely. That is purely an emotional argument, but it is no less true for all that.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Arizona

** The great Anglo-Catholic author Anthony Burgess, who wavered back and forth on a belief in God during his life, shortly before his death declared that the Argument from Desire was ultimately the argument that led him to belief. **

Perhaps this argument from desire dovetails somewhat with Pascal’s Wager Argument, which also seems to resonate with some atheists as they approach death.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Most humans are superstitious. Even today. I am amazed at seeing the amount of new-age-type superstitious beliefs. And those superstitions are not alone. How many people believe in poltergeists? Should we give even a temporary credence to those beliefs, just because many people subscribe to them?

Superstitious? Gosh, if that isn’t prejudicing the whole argument from the get-go. I think, if we are going to be honest, we should take people’s claims as what they are: honest claims of experience. Of course they could be wrong, but to completely disregard them a priori is based on a philosophical, not a scientific (in the broad sense), position. I mean, the same argument could be made about scientific claims - because people have faked scientific discoveries in the past, we should distrust all new claims, which is evidently nonsense.

However, is there any evidence that this explanation is correct?

Certainly. There is the evidence of experience of the numinous, to begin with. Then there are arguments that could be made in favour of the existence of the divine.

Please rephrase. I have no ides what this sentence means.

You said above:

And how would he know that there is a “natural desire” for some supernatural? Did he interview everyone? Speaking only for myself, I have no desire for anything supernatural.

The conclusion of which seems to be that there is no such natural desire for the divine. But then you say:

The desires come from natural, biological needs, not the other way 'round.

Which suggests that if there is any such desire, it is biological in origin.

 

[jonathan_hili]

To be skeptical about it is the starting point. Yet, as I said, I am open to see the evidence. Until that point I simply play the percentages. If someone claims that he or she had a supernatural experience, then I have two options: (1) accept the word of that person, or (2) assume that the person is in error. The probability that the person is in error, is overwhelmingly greater than the probability of some supernatural experience - especially since there never was a properly documented event of any supernatural.

So I play the percentages. I suspect that you would do the same if someone would come forth with a claim you find almost impossible to believe (for example if someone claimed that he won 10 consecutive jackpots on some lottery).

This seems to be similar to Hume’s position for discounting miracles. The problem is, when you begin with the presupposition: “X is more unlikely nine times out of ten, therefore, I need not believe it or investigate it”, you will miss the one time out of ten that X actually happens! Don’t just play percentages - God knows that you can’t live your life doing that! - but actually investigate. I would suggest some of the Eucharistic miracles or those like Fatima, which are quite extraordinary.

 

[grannymh]

Continued from post 49

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
My apology if post 30 sounded like I was referring to * “Truth” as an ontological object. Allow me to rephrase. Objective truth refers to something that exists independent of our wishful thoughts. objective is the operative word.*

I agree with you 100% .

Thank you. One of the many descriptions for God is that He exists independently from affirmations as well as denials.

The proposition of all gods fall into the same category. There is no objective evidence for the existence of ANY gods.

I am talking about objective existence, not objective evidence. Actually, evidence can exist in all kinds of ways. I have the free choice to consider my eternal soul when thinking about God’s objective existence. I have the free choice to consider spiritual evidence presented in Catholic doctrines. You, also, have free choice.

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Rain-gods indicate that the human person is capable of considering something super-natural, even something that is spiritual. Weather forecasters are naturally real; rain-gods are not naturally real.

Sure. They were simply the most plausible explanation for the natural phenomenon before science was advanced enough to create an even rudimentary meteorology. Of course people should have realized that the hocus-pocus of the tribal shamans did not produce good results, and yet they kept on believing. Of course today people utter millions of prayers every day - just look at the sub-forum of “Prayer intentions” - and almost none of them are fulfilled - yet people keep on believing that “prayers are fulfilled”. Not much of a difference compared to our cavemen ancestors.

I believe that the existence of God is plausible. God always answers prayers. Sometimes the answer is yes and sometimes the answer is no.

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
… will start to question from where did the idea of super-natural come from. It cannot be from ignorance because ignorance would prevent this kind of creative imagination.

On the very contrary, it does come from ignorance.

However, I believe that humans are highly intelligent.

Actually, I read a very plausible explanation for the emergence of “super-natural”. It cannot be verified, since the roots go back hundreds of thousands of years, but the facts are still unquestionable and the conclusion is very logical.

Very interesting. I am so glad that God did not have to emerge.

That “logic” escapes me.

I do understand why that “logic” can "escape people. Sorry about that.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Here is how C.S. Lewis framed the argument:

Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists. A baby feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim; well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire; well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. (Mere Christianity, Bk. III, chap. 10, “Hope”)

Here is an article from Prof. Kreeft’s website on the argument, which also frames it well:

Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This something is what people call “God” and “life with God forever.”

peterkreeft.com/topics/desire.htm

 

[Innoruk]

This seems to be similar to Hume’s position for discounting miracles. The problem is, when you begin with the presupposition: “X is more unlikely nine times out of ten, therefore, I need not believe it or investigate it”, you will miss the one time out of ten that X actually happens!

I have a question. Do you also advocate to investigate all the innumerable assertions of the new-agers? Should we waste time on their propositions? And any other nonsensical propositions, some half-wit ever comes up with? Why should one give some a-priori credence to the claims of supernatural? Just because many people believe them?

The percentage here is a lot less than one out of ten. If one out of ten experiments would show a positive result, it would be very serious indeed. However, there is nothing wrong with leaving the task to those who assert that there is some “supernatural” whatever is going on. Let them do the experimentation if they have time and money to burn.

The only requirement is to do this properly. And if the result is negative, then do not try to explain it away, by saying that God cannot be tested. It is disappointing to see the assertion that a “positive result” is an indication of God’s existence (or benevolence, or whatever), however the billions of negative results are irrelevant. This behavior is called intellectual dishonesty.

Don’t just play percentages - God knows that you can’t live your life doing that! - but actually investigate. I would suggest some of the Eucharistic miracles or those like Fatima, which are quite extraordinary.

All you have to do is invite the CSICOP people to help you to set up the proper experiments, and then follow the protocol. If the results are significant, you can present them to the scientists, who will take over and continue. But life is too short, and the resources are too scarce to spend them on wild-goose chases.

 

[Innoruk]

Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Every terminally ill cancer patient desires a cure for his illness. Therefore there is a real medicine that will satisfy that desire. All you have to do is wish for something and your wish will be magically fulfilled!

The criticism for this is .

 

[jonathan_hili]

I have a question. Do you also advocate to investigate all the innumerable assertions of the new-agers?

Like you, I have a preconceived worldview from which I judge such things. But I think we should both be honest to admit it. However, though I don’t investigate every such assertion, just like I don’t investigate every scientific claim or even miracle reported in the Church, if someone personally approached me with such a claim, I would not disregard them out of hand. Furthermore, if a claim is well attested, I’d give it my consideration - and I’m not closed to God working through all sorts of people and religions.

The only requirement is to do this properly. And if the result is negative, then do not try to explain it away, by saying that God cannot be tested. It is disappointing to see the assertion that a “positive result” is an indication of God’s existence (or benevolence, or whatever), however the billions of negative results are irrelevant. This behavior is called intellectual dishonesty.

The problem with this kind of scientific experiment is that it doesn’t work with people, particularly if they know. I mean, could you inform your wife of such an experiment on her person and then not have her deliberately skew the results because - frankly - she’s insulted that you are running such an experiment? Scientific experiments work fine on things without free will, that follow a law of some kind, but why think it works on people?

All you have to do is invite the CSICOP people to help you to set up the proper experiments, and then follow the protocol. If the results are significant, you can present them to the scientists, who will take over and continue. But life is too short, and the resources are too scarce to spend them on wild-goose chases.

Well, what have scientists had to say about the Eucharistic miracle at Lanciano, or Fatima, or the miracles at Lourdes? I mean, these seem to be very well attested.

 

[Innoruk]

Like you, I have a preconceived worldview from which I judge such things. But I think we should both be honest to admit it. However, though I don’t investigate every such assertion, just like I don’t investigate every scientific claim or even miracle reported in the Church, if someone personally approached me with such a claim, I would not disregard them out of hand. Furthermore, if a claim is well attested, I’d give it my consideration - and I’m not closed to God working through all sorts of people and religions.

That is not the point. You said that one should investigate the claims of supernatural. I say: “you do it” - in a proper fashion (double blind, control group tested). If the result is statistically significant, then fine.

The problem with this kind of scientific experiment is that it doesn’t work with people, particularly if they know. I mean, could you inform your wife of such an experiment on her person and then not have her deliberately skew the results because - frankly - she’s insulted that you are running such an experiment? Scientific experiments work fine on things without free will, that follow a law of some kind, but why think it works on people?

That is precisely the reason to have double-blind control groups. Besides, there are very reliable “trick” methods, which allow you to gauge the honesty of the respondents, to see if they wish to “skew” the results. In testing for personality traits, people try to “show their better side”, and the psychologists developed tests to find out if people are lying about themselves.

Well, what have scientists had to say about the Eucharistic miracle at Lanciano, or Fatima, or the miracles at Lourdes? I mean, these seem to be very well attested.

Since none of those were performed in proper format, they are correctly disregarded as anecdotal.

Let me give an example. There are literally millions of instances when people report that they had a premonition about something, and their premonition came true. I am not talking about a paltry few hundred “miracles”, but literally millions. Let’s assume that all those people are perfectly honest, they did have that premonition, and it really came true. Do you think that millions of positive results are truly an indication of “premonition”?