Focusing attention on defending and promoting relatively minor or unconvincing miracle claims has often caused considerable harm, both intellectually and socially. When time, energy, and authority are devoted to validating anecdotal or questionable events, it diverts attention from more substantive ethical, scientific, and philosophical concerns. It fosters credulity, reinforces dogma, and can even lead to exploitation, as communities or individuals invest faith and resources in unverifiable phenomena. Moreover, the insistence on publicizing such claims amplifies confusion and conflict, as skeptics and believers clash over matters that cannot be settled by evidence. In many cases, the world might have been better served if these minor wonders had never been reported at all, leaving human inquiry to focus on truths and experiences that can be reasonably examined, tested, and shared without coercion or distraction.
The resurrection of Jesus, while central to Christian doctrine, is followed with genuine dedication by only a minority of believers, even within the Church. For most, its significance cannot be convincingly demonstrated through evidence or experience, and its centrality is largely assumed rather than universally experienced. Importantly, theologically speaking, the failure of the resurrection would not necessarily negate hope for bodily or eternal joy. Many ethical and spiritual principles—such as living a virtuous life, cultivating compassion, and seeking meaning—would remain valid regardless of the historicity of this singular event. In this sense, the resurrection, while symbolically powerful, is not indispensable to the broader pursuit of human flourishing or spiritual fulfillment.
THE GRADATION
Gradation – Meriting Investigation
When miracles are claimed, not all deserve investigation—but some may warrant attention.
STAGE 1: Assess Importance
Is it a miracle of significance?
Or is it a minor or trivial claim?
Only those with significance merit further investigation.
STAGE 2: Assess Sources
Reported by living witnesses who can provide firsthand testimony
Reported by people who were present but are now deceased
Reported long after the event by people who were not present
If the claim comes solely from the last category, it may not be worth pursuing unless others depend on an answer.
From this approach, we see that we are not automatically obliged to accept or investigate every claim in texts like the New Testament.
Many miracle and paranormal claims exist that cannot be definitively disproven, but neither can they be proven. This leaves us with a choice in how to approach them:
A skeptic assumes that, given full information, such claims would likely be disproven.
A believer assumes that, given full information, such claims might be verified.
It is not consistent to hold both positions simultaneously.
If a miracle demands unquestioning belief under threat of severe consequences, it becomes problematic. Such claims may be considered unworthy of serious consideration, as they are structured to compel belief rather than invite reasoned inquiry.
THE ARGUMENT
A miracle is a supernatural event that is not naturally possible, though not necessarily impossible. It may be caused by a power greater than nature, such as God. Miracles, like raising someone from the dead, are extraordinary and demand careful scrutiny.
Miracles are unlikely. This unlikelihood means that strong evidence is needed to justify belief. Evidence must be examined personally; authority alone is insufficient. Miracles should be questioned, and not all claims merit investigation. Only important miracles reported by credible witnesses warrant serious attention. Many miracle claims, especially those reported long after events or by unreliable sources, are not worth consideration.
Miracles differ from ordinary claims because they contradict natural expectations. Scientific understanding requires nature to behave regularly, so extraordinary claims require stricter scrutiny. Religion often biases which miracles are considered and does not provide evidence that claims are worth investigating.
David Hume argued that while miracles are possible, they are so improbable that even strong evidence is insufficient to justify belief. Christianity misrepresents this, claiming Hume dismisses miracles outright. Christian arguments that actual evidence can outweigh theoretical improbability misunderstand the difference between natural improbability and supernatural impossibility. Supernatural claims are intrinsically anti-evidence and cannot reliably override the improbability of natural laws.
Belief in miracles assumes the supernatural can tamper with evidence, making evaluation biased. Evidence must be assessed assuming no supernatural interference. Theoretical probability must guide our trust in evidence, as evidence alone cannot establish the likelihood of miracles. Even compelling evidence does not prove a miracle; it only suggests possibilities.
In short, miracles are very improbable, require solid and quality evidence, and are never proven. Faith-based claims about miracles often rely on misrepresenting evidence and ignoring the logical and empirical standards necessary for belief.