The evidence needed to support an exception to a general rule should
be as strong as the evidence supporting the rule itself. This is
rarely done, often because exceptions are used as excuses to break
the rule. But in reality, when rule X appears to make an exception,
it doesn’t really break the rule—it creates a new rule tailored to
the specific situation. For example: “Only dogs can walk here.” If
John walks here because he has severe OCD and must, then effectively
there are two rules, and the “only dogs” rule is not literally true.
What Is a Miracle?
A miracle is typically defined as an event that reveals or proves the activity of God. For instance, seeing a statue does not prove God exists, but believers argue that if the statue were to bleed or speak, that would be undeniable proof of God’s existence.
Are Miracles Exceptions or Violations of Nature?
A miracle can either be an exception to nature or a violation of it. If we take miracles at face value, they appear to be exceptions to the way nature normally works. Some argue that all miracles are simply rare exceptions, not violations, meaning they don’t actually break natural laws. This view depends on the belief that exceptions prove the rule.
The Accusation of Arrogance
Religious believers often accuse atheists of arrogance for dismissing miracles outright and demand that atheists examine the evidence for miracles. But do believers give the same scrutiny to claims like ghosts? Why are atheists told to specifically examine certain miracles, such as the resurrection of Jesus? Highlighting one miracle over others suggests a bias from the start. Choosing to believe only certain miracles is not about open inquiry—it is about endorsing what religion wants you to believe. Ironically, believers often display more arrogance than nonbelievers.
Christianity teaches that Jesus rose from the dead and that no one else has or will do so again. This implies that, effectively, no one rises from the dead—one exception among billions is practically none.
Unbelievers simply take this a step further, and there’s nothing arrogant about that. Religion exaggerates the significance of this point, but in reality, believers and unbelievers share biases; believers, however, freely accuse unbelievers of being unreasonable. Belief in miracles often comes with accusations, which is problematic. Even if belief in miracles can be considered immoral, that doesn’t mean miracles do not happen—but it does suggest we should focus on investigating natural explanations instead.
Are Miracles and Natural Laws Mutually Exclusive?
Religion teaches that dead people stay dead, with Jesus as a unique exception. It accuses unbelievers of mistakenly seeing these two ideas as mutually exclusive. Religion says all laws have exceptions, and just because something happens frequently in a certain way, it doesn’t mean it must always happen that way.
David Hume is often misrepresented as denying the possibility of exceptions to natural laws. In fact, he argued that if a miracle occurs, it is an exception—and extraordinary evidence is required to rationally believe in it. The general rule remains that dead people stay dead, and exceptions do not overturn the rule.
The general rule always holds greater weight than any exception. It is more important to affirm the regularity of nature than to accept that a miracle has occurred. Therefore, we should be reluctant to believe in miracles—not to reject them outright, but to accept them only when the evidence is compelling.
Debunking False Miracles and Verifying True Ones
Believers say they respect nature’s regularity and argue that accepting rare exceptions like miracles does not undermine faith in nature. But if a miracle happens, even with evidence, you cannot simply assume it is a rare exception. There are countless miracle claims worldwide, many unknown to you. To claim one miracle is a rare exception, you must investigate and potentially debunk all the others. Declaring any miracle as a rare exception requires evidence of fraud or doubt about the rest. Whether a miracle is genuine or fake must be determined by evidence—not assumption.
Are Miracles Exceptions or Violations?
There can be no true exceptions to natural laws because miracles break those laws—they are violations, not exceptions. For example, a statue crying tears of blood appears to violate natural laws, not merely make an exception to them.
If blood were coming from a bird’s eyes, that might be an unusual but natural event—more of an exception. If the blood came from an invisible being, that still involves a physical cause and is not necessarily supernatural. There is no need for the phrase “the exception proves the rule” here—simply acknowledge a new rule for a unique case.
Evidence cannot definitively tell us whether a miracle is an exception or a violation—we can only guess. But if you must guess, why not consider that miracles are violations? Viewing miracles as exceptions opens the door to seeing them as violations, which brings significant philosophical and evidential problems.
Conclusion
Miracles are either supernatural or they are not. Claiming they are natural makes no sense, but neither does simply declaring them supernatural without evidence. Studying miracles may be futile, yet necessary, because false claims spread and require responses.
If God performs miracles, those miracles would be exceptions because God makes the rules, and exceptions should demonstrate the wisdom of those rules. But since exceptions cannot truly exist, God does not perform miracles. This is not dogmatism—it is the conclusion reason leads us to. Ultimately, miracles serve as evidence against the existence of God and reveal the religious duplicity of humans.
APPENDIX: HOW FAR SHOULD WE GO WITH RELUCTANCE TO BELIEVE IN A MIRACLE?
Being reluctant to believe does not mean you should never believe; rather, it means you should only believe when the reasons are strong and well-founded. It is important to debunk false miracle claims while verifying the rare ones that may be genuine.
Believers in miracles often claim to respect nature and its consistent laws, asserting that acknowledging rare exceptions like miracles does not undermine faith in nature’s regularity. But what if a miracle does occur? Even if you have evidence supporting the event, you cannot simply assume it is a rare exception. There are countless miracle claims worldwide, most of which you are unaware of.
To rightfully claim that a particular miracle is a rare exception, you would need to examine and debunk all the other miracle claims. Declaring one miracle to be exceptional requires uncovering evidence of fraud or doubt in all the others. Whether a miracle is genuine or fake is ultimately a matter for careful evidence-based investigation. That is why it is unjustified to simply assume miracles are rare occurrences.
Consider this: by definition, a miracle is a rare and supernatural event. I need solid evidence to confidently label something as such. I also need evidence to assess the many miracle claims around the world — which ones are false, which ones are doubtful, and which, if any, may be true.
OBJECTION: This is impossible.
REPLY: Why not still try though? It is not the principle's fault that it is so hard. The principle is still valid.