Religions rely on miracles to demonstrate the authenticity of figures thought to have supernatural powers. Many people feel that key events in their lives were literally miracles. Many even claim to have witnessed miracles. But what counts as a miracle? Is it true, as Hume argued, that it is always more rational to disbelieve the testimony of a miracle than to believe in the miracle itself? John and Ken explore what miracles are, and what would constitute good reasons for believing in them, with Peter Graham from the University of California Riverside.
Could a fully rational person believe in the occurrence of real miracles? Ken and John emphasize that the topic of discussion is not “pseudo-miracles”—cases in which really unlikely things happen—but genuine cases of divine intervention in which the laws of nature are violated or suspended. John is skeptical of these cases, asserting that we ought to seek out alternative scientific explanations instead of concluding that something miraculous occurred. Ken isn’t so sure, and he suggests that the universe might seem cold and dead if miracles weren’t possible.
John and Ken welcome guest Peter Graham, a professor of Philosophy at UC Riverside who researches the nature of knowledge. He points out that if we want to find out whether it is rational to believe in miracles, we need to think about what would count as good evidence for them. In particular, because most of us only hear about miracles secondhand, through the stories of others, we need to reflect on the standards by which we evaluate the testimonies of other people. Actual reports of miracles, he claims, have never met those standards, so it’s irrational to believe in them. Ken and John express skepticism about these standards by pointing out that they can sometimes lead us astray. John makes the deeper challenge that maybe it’s better not to be rational at all. In response, Peter says that the standards of evidence he has been emphasizing are very familiar to us and play an important role in our daily lives.
但如果我们不相信奇迹，我们会失去对世界的敬畏和好奇吗?彼得说不;宇宙的宏伟本身就能令人敬畏。肯担心这可能还不够。即使我们不认为自然法则是悬而不动的，我们会不会认为宇宙的形成是一个奇迹呢?也许是神的智慧带来了最初的奇迹。彼得指出他的论证并没有排除上帝的存在。相反，它确立了相信那些声称自己创造或看到了奇迹的人是不理性的。哲学家们总结了一些关于在世俗时代寻找意义的想法。
