Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
Well, the Humean idea of a "miracle" essentially boils down to "something for which there is always a more reasonable explanation". For example that you were dreaming / hallucinating. This might not be the case if you just see a piece of wood floating, but if you see what all our senses and knowledge says is identifiable as a UFO (in the X-files sense) or an angel, I think many of us might first assume that there's something wrong with our heads / eyes, or that it's a hoax, a government project, what ever. Because It Just Can't Be what looks like. (And if it's just something you read in the papers, well, media is always wrong anyway.)
|
I still don't get it, a rational person who witnessed a single incident of something that looked like an angel or UFO would marvel at the experience, but would also know that to jump to the conclusion of believing in said things based on a single anecdotal experience is not rational, it's irrational.
But history has shown that that same rational person when presented with things that are miracles, but are REAL (i.e. affect reality in some way) will strive to do everything they can to understand it rather than reject it as proposed.
Anyone who knows anything about quantum theory, or really understands the implications of general relativity.. those things are truly magical, yet we can access them through science. I know people who reject general relativity, and they usually aren't rational, they're usually irrationally dogmatic.
Seems to me the Humean idea of evidence is flawed, since anything we perceive with our senses is poor evidence. One of the strengths of science is its ability to overcome our deficiencies. Look at a good magician, or watch a skilled pick pocket or grifter, they can manipulate the human attention easily and show how truely inadequate our mind is.