Can we ever rationally base a religion on a miracle? How can a miracle
claim virtually or tacitly call God unjust? If that is what it does then we
cannot spiritually base a religion on miracle claims.
The philosopher
David Hume famously argued: "No human testimony can have such force as to
prove a miracle, and make it a just foundation for any such system of
religion."
I think that is a good point but not a great point. Prove
can seem too demanding. That does not mean we in any way are more hopeful of
finding miracles reasonable. Here is an improved version.
"No human
testimony can have such force as to demonstrate a miracle beyond reasonable
doubt, and make it a suitable or just foundation for any such system of
religion” seems tighter and less forceful but still dispenses with all miracle
yarns that lack credibility.
When we break this down logically, the
argument becomes even stronger—and it highlights a profound issue of epistemic
justice.
The Problem of Evidence and Trust
If an undetectable,
supernatural force intervenes to "cause" a miracle or compel someone to
witness it, we face a paradox. Is that force overriding human free will? Is it
manipulating reality to trick our senses?
The Self-Defeating Narrative
If a supernatural force dictates what a witness sees and says, the witness is
no longer an independent observer. The force is essentially controlling the
narrative and testifying to itself. This makes human testimony logically
self-defeating.
Why This is a Matter of Justice
Justice requires
fairness, accountability, and the right to truth.
Basing a shared
belief system or societal laws on unverifiable miracles violates these
principles in two distinct ways:
Epistemic Injustice: It demands that
people surrender their rational faculties and accept claims that cannot be
cross-examined or verified.
Procedural Unfairness: True justice
requires transparent evidence. When laws or dogmas are built on private,
supernatural experiences rather than public, verifiable facts, it creates an
unfair system where institutional power replaces objective truth.
To
build a truly just foundation for society, we must rely on open truth,
verifiable evidence, and shared human reason—not unprovable interventions.
Sceptics say that big claims such as the resurrection need really good
support – not proof but there must be no window for error or fraud. I think
Jesus accidentally affirmed big claims need solid support too when he said
faked signs from God could fool the elect and such signs were coming. Also
Bible miracle claims are not in a void. They are linked to serious claims
about sin that seem over the top. It is a matter of justice. One is innocent
until proven guilty.
Everybody, perhaps without realising, applies "extraordinary claims need
and implicitly demand extraordinary ie high quality preferably hard,
evidence". Everybody rejects many extraordinary claims for being
extraordinary. Christians reject pantheism as stupid. Muslims think Jesus
atoning sin is too much. Jews find the Hebrew texts do not predict Jesus. It
is hypocritical to condemn sceptics for finding no grounds to declare an
alleged miracle credible. Even Jesus surprisingly said that fake wonders would
come that could fool the very saints. He advised extreme caution.
Jesus
told a cynical story that there was no point in sending a man risen from the
dead to his evil brothers to ask them to repent. This encourages the toxic
notion that if one has not been helped by God to find him, it is because God
knows he'd not respond affirmatively anyway. How one could claim to love
sinners while wanting their sin to stop and hating it, with a straight
face...!