So I've been away for awhile, and noticed two things--a lot of people hide behind desks and don't like to think outside the box or help people, and most of my "Philosophy Weekly" (increasingly misnamed, by the way, given absences on the part of yours truly) issues in the past few weeks have been religion-based, as, well, I AM taking a Philosophy of Religion course with a professor who WAS a pastor for 40 years...and as we DO clash, and my opinion is usually in the minorty, I get a lot of religion-based ideas I like to refine here as a result, to get a wider census.

That being said, to the issue itself:

First, this is NOT AT ALL a "Can we prove/disprove God/Miracles/X/Y/Z?" thread, so let's have none of that; I do not seek to discuss here if such a being exists.

INSTEAD I'd like to discuss the implications of believing one DOES, and if this is good or not for our lifestyle--for example, are we perhaps slower to act on issues thinking "God made things this way, so it must be the right way" or "God'll sort it all out in the end" or, perhaps the biggest elephant in the room here, "There ARE final consequences and rewards because of God, so this murderer WILL get what he has coming one way or another, and I will as well, so I should try and remain pious."

Relating this to miracles...well, counting Jesus' alleged return someday as a potential miracle (certainly that would seem to fit the bill as being one, or at least fitting the gneral idea of one), I speak to a LOT of people on the bus, and...well, no matter if I want to talk about free will or ethics or politics or what have you, it always comes back to the central issues of:

1. God/Jesus loves me
2. " is good
3. " is all-powerful
4. Because of 1, 2, and 3, God/Jesus is capable of and wants to protect me, therefore
5. God/Jesus watches over me, and will help me if I need help

It is the conclusion of that line of reasoning, Point 5, that I adress here...

Is that really a GOOD view, to feel no matter how hard you fall someone will help you up? That no matter what God will help you and, moreover, that you just might need for this to be so, need God's protection or power or help sometimes, because human beings just can't stack up sometimes?

I don't think that's quite so; I know I quote Nietzsche quite often, but this always calls to mind my favorite parable of his:

A person (ie, the narrator/Nietzsche/you) is walking in the woods when he happens upon a shepherd, who's sleeping peacefully. Suddenly a huge black snake slitehrs into the shepherd's mouth, and bites his tongue. The shepherd awakes in tremendous pain, shrieking and running about, until he finally bites off the head of the snake himself, witch much effort, and spits it out.

And, having done so, the narrator relates he has never seen a man laugh more joyously or triumphantly than the shepherd.



The shepherd in the story is faced with an issue, and deals with it himself, no protector around, faces the task, and not only meets it, but feels BETTER for having conquered this evil, for his achievement, for picking himself up and saving himself.

If we believe in miracles and a God or Savior that can--and in our own beliefs, should--fix such things, save us...

Have we lost that triumphant part of man the shepherd displayed, the ability to overcome obstacles through our own volition? Would we maybe have less issues in the world today if, regardless of if they exist or even if we believed them to exist or not, we didn't believe God or Jesus or whomever could, would, or should help in human affairs, that it was up to US?

I'm inclined to think so, for that reason, so far...what do you all think?

OK, I understand. I think you're OP was a little misleading.

Why do you expect an interesting discussion to come of this?
Believers will say: "Maybe we can't *prove* that God exists, but I have faith, so I will live as though he does."
Atheists will say: "We can't prove God exists, so I'll assume he doesn't until proven otherwise."

It would be internally inconsistent for either party to say otherwise, so why would they?

Also, since prayer probably does nothing (if there is or isn't a God), and since people rarely leave everything entirely up to prayer, I'd say it's more often than not a round-about way of finding the strength within yourself, rather than some scapegoat of responsibility.

Because I'm asking the participants ehre to grant the assumption that a God exists, even if they are Richard Dawkins-stone cold against the idea, as the question isn't IF a God exists, but rather, if one DOES, or WERE one to exist (for the atheist crowd) would it be a good idea to live as if one did and would act as an ever-present protector, or if such an idea is harmful?

To put it another way--suppose Man is an eight-year old and the theoretical God is our Father, and we're on the Bicycle of Life.

God has placed Training Wheels on our Bike, and is always right behind us in case we fall.

Is THAT a good way to live our lives?

Is is better to:

A. Ride the Bike knowing full well no matter what we do, even if we crash head-long into a moving vehichle and we're not wearing a helmet, God will "save us" via a miracle?

OR

B. Ride that Bike as though there is NOT an omnipresent, omniscient, all-powerful, all-loving God to catch us if we fall, so if we're faced with the prospect of falling off that Bike or danger comes about the onus is on us to act?

Well, *if* God exists, then of course we should live our lives as if he existed. To do otherwise would be foolish and ignorant. You live your life knowing that airbags work, but you don't go around plowing into trees just because you can.

Let's assume that everything we know about the Universe is true, but there is also a God pulling the strings. Then:

In regards to A: God *doesn't* always save people. Tons of people die from bike accidents. So, even if there were a God, it clearly isn't a get-out-jail-free card.

Or, are you talking about some mystical Universe where God doesn't let anything bad happen?

Part of the reason it's a miracle is because it happens sporadically. If everyone survived a car crash, it wouldn't be a miracle, it would just mean that car crashes aren't dangerous.

Should we reword this question? Do miracles prove that God doesn't exist?

Suppose we take a control group of 1000 wheelbound disabled people carefully selected on the basis that their doctors and an independent consultant have decided there is no way that any of them could ever walk again. One by one we start tipping their chairs up and to see if we can induce a miracle. Low and behold when we tip up chair 376 the occupant gets up and walks rather than falling to the floor. s/he then moonwalks down the corridor and is last seen dancing in the street. We continue with our experiment and continue to tip up the remaining chairs. (just for scientific completeness - and a good laugh). No other miracles take place.

Now lets accept that we have done everything to ensure that the miracle is no hoax, there is no rational explanation.

I think this proves that either (a) God doesn't exist, why would he let the other 999 people suffer when he shown he is able to intervene? or (b) God has a sense of humour.

(c) Misdiagnosed, or natural event. Some people do beat the odds.

No, Maniac, do NOT reword the question in that fashion, please, as this isn't another prove/disprove God thread (I mean this respectfully, don't take this as a knock against you personally.)

To try and reword my own question--should we live supposing a God does exist and can save us (either literally or metaphysically, ie, save us via a "heaven" and punish via a "hell") or is it better to live without such a belief that, say, if I ask for strenght to geth through a crisis that cry will go unheeded and I must find the strength myself, and then if you want to take the question metaphysically, should we in this instance live without the conception there is a heaven and an eternal, rewarding afterlife?

See, my issue is when I talk with quite a few people on my bus dialogues (seriously, the amount and variety of folks I talk to, I'm trying to compile and still discover the extent of my ideas, but if I ever DO get the chance to write a book or play, those dialogues really are going to influence it, I'm sure...if these were greek days I'd be writing in dialogue form FOR SURE) generally if they are religious in any capacity they generally feel that there is little point worrying too much about THIS world's pains and sufferings, assuming that a God WILL be there to help them if things get too tough or, if they DO die a terrible death, that it won't really matter, they'll have Heaven to look foward to.

As an example, let's take Ms. Ophelia Lavinia Coredelia. (Gee, I wonder who her father was...)

OK, so Ms. Ophelia Lavinia Cordelia is in a bit of a pickle here: she WAS a great opera singer and author, but she has throat cancer and a husband that left her flat once she learned of this.

So Ms. Ophelia Lavinia Cordelia wonders HOW she can keep going in her life, let alone support her two children (...let's call them Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, shall we?) Opera singing payed alright, but between her cancer and three children, not to mention a divorce settlement and bills to pay and media scrutiny all mounting, she's in a jam. To top it all off, she's about halfway done with a book that's SURE to not only be a best-seller but a hugely significant work of art.

Is it BETTER for Ms. Ophelia Lavinia Cordelia to say to herself:

-"It's alright, Jesus loves me and will surely see me through this, he has performed so many miracles and has touched my life so profoundly that surely he will help me through this, I should look to God and Jesus for support and guidance in this time of need...and even if the worst things come to pass and I DO die, then I will surely see heaven, and so all will be fine."

OR

-"I must face this and face it head-on; I have serious, physical, practical problems that demand serious, physical, and practical answers. I must make sure to finish my book, that and my children will live after me, if nothing else does, if no earthly or heavenly soul remains to me afterward...no miracle or Act of God can help me, I must help myself."

WHICH is the course of action you would recommend for Ms. Ophelia Lavinia Cordelia?

Some people would say both. God helps those who help them selves.

Assume the two are mutually exclusive, that, say, if she takes the latter view and believes God will sort things out and save her, she won't be so motivated to finish her book, and therefore will die without finishing this potential new "Les Miserables" being finished--or, worse, if she dies and there ISN'T a God, if she was wrong, that she dies with that much less to be remembered by, to have live on after her.

I'd answer the second response, I'd want to assume the worst and/or the most practical course, and, beyond that, I would nsay that man lives on in his works--Shakespeare and Nietzsche and Mozart are long dead, and yet, in a way, they aren't their ideas live on in their works, and what are we, after all, but conceptions and ideas to beget further ideas (either constructed through our own volition or else supplied by God, either way, we are an idea at our core...WHAT that idea is, what the central idea of Man is one of our great questions, but that we are an idea I think is at least somewhat sound of a statement to make. If that is so, then, and Ms. Ophelia Lavinia Cordelia dies without completing her book, without seeing to it that she takes action and is that much more active in attempting to shape and train and help her children before she may pass on, so mcuh of what might have contributed to her personal idea, her personal self, if you will, should seem to me to have been lost.)

Certainly I don't mean to say that Ms. Ophelia Lavinia Cordelia (I think about an abbreviation each time and each time end up writing the whole thing, just fun to write, lol) shouldn abandon her whole life for God and assume he will do EVERYTHING if she takes that course, nearly no one is so absurd or extreme, she wouls till, of course, recognize someone still needs to get herself off the bed and to her bedpan, and that would NOT be God.

But if she takes the view God will save her, or that she will face an ultimate reward, she should seem to ahve less of an incentive to act, as she may reason that regardless of hER actions, GOD'S actions will be final and saving, and so even if she fails she and her family will be alright in the end--and so, feeling that her actions account for elss in a world where miracles may occur and God may intercede and be active before or after death and save her Himself, there should seem less reason for her to act, and as a result less actions from her, and as a result, again, perhaps the children are affected differently or the book unfinished.

If she takes the other view, however...is it BETTER to jsut assume that only you can help yourself, even in your darkest hours? Could this be too weighty a truth (if true) and weigh her down with such depression she does even less, or nothing?

If "his" guidance is to finish the book? They can't be mutually exclusive because the guidance maybe to do the later. Even when people make a choice like the later they say, "It was his guidance", and if it does not work out it's God's will.

I think you would have to take the latter stance, because miracles are, by their very nature, rare, so relying on one would be foolhardy in the extreme. Why should you suppose you know the mind of God well enough to believe He would choose YOU (Miss Ophelia) to be the most deserving or correct (under whatever criteria) recepeint of the miracle.

A true believer would (I think) believe that the inner strength to battle on was God given, and find God's gift in that, rather than a miracle cure. The source of the inner strength (jn reality) is irrelevant. If you find it - it's a gift. If you don't - it's God's plan.

But if she believes that her actions are ultimately without much consequence, ie, of an almighty God will determine her fate one way or the other and save her from death anyway, why should she strive to write, or to act, or to be with any great volition?

THAT is what I see as msutually exclusive--either you accept the idea of miracles and heaven and all of that and, as such, se a limit to your influence and that your life is merely a stepping stone to heaven, just a test, OR you see life as THE thing, nothing coming before nor after guaranteed, THIS IS IT, MAKE YOUR MARK WELL AND LONG, as it's all you may have, either there isn't a god or you don't klnow, but all you can be certain of is you have every reason to beleive your actions on Earth not only are the only things that matter for you in regards to your oiverall legacy, but that if there is no divine action then human action reigns as the determining factor, that without a heaven to "make it all better" in the END, or a hell ro punish in the END, those actions must now be carried out to their fullest here and NOW.

@PeteU:

I agree to an extent with your first paragraph, and disagree with your second: if it works out it's a gift, if not it's part of the plan?

Where, then, does human action stand, or even causality, if we take a more determinist view (as I would, I'd argue free will is very limited and more a coloring in the lins of our life than actually drawing our lines and paths...but I digress) then must we attribute it all to a God's miracle; as Hume once famously stated (and as you'd better BET I'll be mentioning tomorrow) a miracle may be seen (in his view, and mine) as being nothing more than the unexplained, NOT the unexplainable.

No, not a direct quote there, a highly abbreviated version of that, so if anyone doesn't like that or feels that's an inadequate expression of his view, just tell me and I'll put up a fuller quote from my copy of his "Enquiry," or feel free to do so yourself...

@obi. But that kind of post-event rationalisation is *exactly* how people behave.

I'm going to disagree to some extent with you, as I see consciousness and therefore free will as an emergent phenomena, and a very real thing.

But clearly, if God is real, he has given us free will (for the Bible tells us so), and dispenses miracles rarely. Therefore, choose to live as if they weren't going to happen - God has given you the ability to make things happen for yourself. As we cannot know the mind of God, or His intent, then it follows that whether we fight or not is part of His plan, even if we may not see it, or understand it, or even like it.

My second paragraph is based on observation of how people with faith behave. Good things are gifts or miracles, bad things are part of the plan that we cannot see.

@obi

If your question is based on the assumption(s) that:

1) God exists
2) He interacts with us

Then it's less a question of "should I expect God to cover my ass when I screw up" than "under what circumstances will God cover my ass".

If you don't *know* under what circumstances God is going to cover your ass, then it behooves you to assume he will not. If you *do* know, then that knowledge should be part of your decision making process.

*If* God exists, *and* you have knowledge that he will intervene in specific circumstances, then presumably you have enough information to know whether he is thrilled about having to do so. That is a logical assumption if one has knowledge about the first two data points.

*If* you know that God is *not* exceptionally thrilled to have to clean up your mess, then - as a God-fearing person - you should logically strive to clean up your own mess so God is not forced to intervene.

If you know that God *does* like behaving in a certain manner, then logically you should let him do so. Unless you wish to piss off your deity, that is.

As always, strat puts my point far more clearly than I ever could

@obiwan

"her actions are ultimately without much consequence"

That's even *more* true if there isn't a god! You do some stuff then you die then sometime later the Universe undergoes heat death. That's without consequence.

@strat

+1 Thanks for putting that in the clearest way possible.

Again, obiwan, I don't think you have a leg to stand on this time.

@ obiwanobiwan:

"1. God/Jesus loves me
2. " is good
3. " is all-powerful
4. Because of 1, 2, and 3, God/Jesus is capable of and wants to protect me, therefore
5. God/Jesus watches over me, and will help me if I need help"

It is demonstrably true that point 5 is incorrect. Every year large numbers of faithful people die through no fault of their own through natural disasters or other incidents outside of their control. Some of them probably spend their last moments praying desperately to God/Jesus to save them. Clearly whether or not God exists, you can't count on him to save you.

these threads are so stupid.

pascals wager sums up how everyone should feel about a divine spirit. atheism is like going all in on a pair of 2s in poker

@obiwan:

So, your point is that it's "smarter" to live as if there's never the chance of a miracle, ever?

And what's the difference with living as if the chance of a miracle is really, really slim?

Has any believer ever stated that they consider miracles to happen everytime, everywhere, so we should live our lives knowing that the miraculous will happen?

It just seems like you're arguing against no one.

OT: I don't believe in miracles, but I'm assuming they happen as you asked us to.

Actually, there are believers who believe miracles happen all the time and everyday and attribute "miracle" to everything and anything, even events that can be readily shown as abiding by the known laws of physics.

Scripture states that with the faith of a mustard seed (pretty freaking small!!!!) one can tell a mountain to move and it will move. In other words, God tells us in His Word to us that he expects us to be a bunch of pathetic losers that *just don't get* the idea. He says, I'm GOD, god-damn-it, and *I* can do ANYTHING and....if you ignorant little fucks would just listen....YOU can do anything THROUGH ME if you JUST SIMPLY BELIEVE in me, and are....." ohhhhh....here's the big IF, my friends...."....if yo ulittel shits would just be OBEDIENT!!!!!!!!" Damn....

You had better NOT trust that God is your "Protector" because He makes it pretty freaking clear that if you are not in "His Will", then He probably ain't listening....

In other words, when you pray, "(thinking: for my own damned good) (praying: Please God, don't let this mugger shoot me!!!!)" then expect the answer to be, "Hell NO! Talk to Pete at the gates, son....he might let you in..." becuase 99.9% of people pray that God is their little bitch servant, asking Him FOR things for their OWN personal benefit, instead of living life so that ALL that you do glorifies GOD.

Do not expect protection if your motivation is SELF-interest, instead of GOD-interest....

Yes Krellin, that is why even Christ prayed (and taught his disciples and us to pray) "Not my will, but thy will be done." It's kind of a "please help, but only if it suits your plan" prayer.

@stratagos:

I don't think we should think/expect/hope for a God, if one exists, to cover our asses in ANY event, though...again, I think the more external help you can even conceive you might attain the less you place on yourself (even if with help you would still place a great deal on yourself, surely without you would then have to place more?)

@stratagos:

I don't think we should think/expect/hope for a God, if one exists, to cover our asses in ANY event, though...again, I think the more external help you can even conceive you might attain the less you place on yourself (even if with help you would still place a great deal on yourself, surely without you would then have to place more?)

Oh, nuts, posted my first one twice and my response to abgemact fell through...

Anyway, the VERY abbreviated version of what I wrote initially, abgemacht:

Universe Death is so far off and may occur in different ways if ever...maybe we will evolve into gods and reach the metaphysical ourselves? Not very likely, obviously, but over that vast expanse of time, my point being that it's so far off that to actions TODAY it has a negligible impact on importance, consequences today and a hundred years from now and a thousand and a million are far more pertinent to meaning than that far-off theoretical fate.

As such I think it hugely important what Ms. Ophelia Lavinia Cordelia does NOW...her impact and her legacy may very well be all that remains of her if there is no God, if she assumes there is none; either she is wrong and she gains heaven and a legacyon Earth that helps others as a plus OR she's right, dies, but "lives on" in the sense that her legacy and rememberence together are all that's left, so best to leave as great a mark as possible, if that's all she gets...

You'l have to lose posts more often; you're much easier to follow on your second take :)

The thing I (and many others) don't understand, and you have yet to address is this:

Since miracles happen sporadically, why do you think people would just stop fending for themselves? As someone said, unless we could determine the algorithm for miracles, knowing that miracles exist don't really help us in our day-to-day lives. Do you disagree?

@Jamiet99uk:

Pretty much my point exactly--you cant count on the help, so DON'T in any way...

@centurion1:

...

If you don't like the thread and KNOW you think it's foolish, why come here and bother those that wish to speak freely?

And Pascal's Wager is a notion I reject as not only being the "coward's way out" but, in addition, I'd argue ovrlooks a small issue--

When you say it is best to beleive...believe in WHICH God? Pascal assumed the Christian one, of course, but as I'v argued before that I think it impossible to ascribe attributes to any God, that knowlege of his attributes and feelings are unkowable to man as he is. then by believing in a God that doesn't WISH to be believed in, or wishes to be believed in a different way...

Follow Pascal's wager and just blindly beleive in hopes of at least having an insurance policy and you might pray or beleive incorrectly and anger said God, and THERE where will you be?

@krellin:

I don't know if I agree or disagree...

But that sure got a laugh out of me... "Talk to Pete at the gates, soon..." XD

@abgemacht:

Maybe I SHOULD always lose the first draft...hmmm...let's see how we do here...lol.

I'd say because with the chance of a miracle, even a slim, sporadic, moon-shot of a chance, you STILL fall back on THAT as a last resort, when all else fails, you go for the Hail Mary pass if you've one second in the game, down by six, and on your own 1-YD line. (Hope that American Football analogy carries over to the UK folks as well, at least the general gist...)



I think that when people are THAT desperate they face a serious danger, if they believe in miracles, of eiother doing anything a church or body says they need to obtain them, or else will listen to themselves or whomever to such a degree and with such desperation for SOMETHING they will delude themselves and ruin themselves.

Beyond this, a miracle's "occurance" can allow for a way of life (ie, a faith-dependant lifestyle, or even a belief system that allows for the belief in miracles) that I would not see at best as being held back by this idea and at worst shackeld by the idea "It happened once and it WILL happen again, Religious Figure X WILL perform a miracle" or "I'm in a tight spot, the only thing that can save me now isn't my own volition but that one person who lovercame the impossible with miracles, Religous Figure Y!"

To paraphrase Hume in his infamous "On Miracles," it only makes sense to believe in them and live as if they may occur if the alternative is even MORE miraculous and absurd, if it makes even LESS sense or is even MORE of a stretch to not believe than to believe.

I cannot honestly think of a situation where that is the case, save possibly a First Mover argument for the universe (though I don't know if that'd count, but anyway, onward!) and so I reject the idea.

I think it leads to a lack of volition, or at least a drop in volition.
i think it can be used in dogma to give certain groups too much power.
I think Hume's argument against them is for the most part a good one.

Okay. So we're looking as if there is a god/God that exists, and whether it is better to live our lives with his help or not. All the posts I see are pretty similar. I'll just conclude what I remember from all the posts.
1. If there is a god/God, we should live depending on what kind of god/God he is. God/god should influence our daily decision making. (by stratagos)
2. If there is a God/god who exists that can interact with us, and he designs our destiny, we will lose motivation in living out our lives. (by Obiwanobiwan)

First of all, I'd like to point out that the god/God that you all point to is a character of human thoughts. And if there is a god, what kind of god? A god of war, god of peace? The range in if there is an existing god/God is so large, we can't really point out to a specific thought, if you would mention the range of what kind of god/God, it would be possible to. Let's suppose the divine being has character of human thoughts, then pretty much we can tell how he'll rule the world. Since he is the divine-being, he also has the ultimate power. He'll rule however he wishes. So, a god of human character won't be satisfied, therefore he will treat us like trash eventually. Because, HUMANS ARE NEVER SATISFIED. This is a popular justice about humans, so I'll just use it as the evidence of what a god/God of human characters would do. If this sort of god/God existed, than it won't really matter how we live. In the end we are all just his toys. There will be the motivation to survive, but before ultimate power, we don't have a chance. Also, if we would try to live on such a god/God's basis, it's impossible, because the god/God is of human character. We will never be able to live up to his expectations or law, unless we are god/God. Because again, humans are never satisfied. There would be miracles everyday. There is a story in the Bible, where God of Jews was actually literally there for them for their protection. He sent manna (bread) from the sky and herds of birds for meat, and the Israelites survived in the desert. Also water sprout from stones, which also be a miracle. God's presence was always with them, described as a great pillar of fire. But eventually, the Israelites grew lazy and disobedient, and the miracles didn't mean anything to them anymore, because it was too often (the providing of food, water). What this story is pointing to us is that miracles won't mean anything to us, and it will only make us grow lazy. Therefore the Christian God stops his miracles, for he knows now that miracles are not helpful in bringing back his people, the Israelites to him. The Christian God loves his people, and wants his people to love him, but the miracles were useless in doing that.
Therefore I do agree to a part of what obiwanobiwan said in the latest response. Miracles do not help us, in terms of living our lives out daily. Once we live based on thinking that a god exists who interferes in our daily lives, our motivation to live out a life of our own decreases. Therefore, the belief in a miracle, is totally different from the belief of a divine being. The miracle I describe here, would be the interaction between a divine being, and us humans. A miracle can't be connected to a divine being, there are many different views. Then who will prove that it is connected with such a divine being, when there is no proof? Here is the difference between my thoughts and obiwon's. It is actually good for us to live as if there is a heavenly God, not of human thoughts. Who would want to worship a God that is like us? But it isn't good to live based on miracles. You can say that the belief of miracles is also a sort of religion. If a god/God actually interacts with our daily lives, then we will grow lazy. You might all think you'll be amazed from just one miracle, but no, that would only be temporary.
So finally I'll just conclude my thoughts in two sentences under a few conditions of my own.

It is good to live as if there is a god/God (who wants us to be happy) so that we can experience happiness through achieving of high thoughts, but it isn't helpful to us when we base our faith on miracles, for it will make us grow lazy and indolent.

I hope my thoughts weren't too subjective.

What if a loved one is ill beyond all hope? What if nothing can be done medically for him? Isn't hope in the chance (not certainty, but chance) of a miracle a good thing? And don't these sort of things actually happen?

***I'm not saying they are miracles, there might be a really far fetched explanation. But if we assume miracles exist, as you've asked us to, then it's logical to assume these situations are indeed miracles***

What I'm trying to say is: If you believe that miracles happen, although only very seldom and for unknown reasons, it wouldn't or at least shouldn't affect your decition-making, except by sometimes giving you hope when you are forced to go against all odds. And, to me, that's a good thing.

I'm with Xapi on that one.

If you're really beyond all hope, I'd be willing to bet that even most militant atheists will reach out to some unknown. Because, it's either that, or give up and humans didn't get where they are by giving up. I'll admit that it doesn't make sense, but often times that belief can give people the will to continue, if when the rational thing to do would be to give up and die. That's how our brains are wired (and for good reason)

I'm not sure why there is any conflict in this thread.

Everyone seems to agree that if miracles happen, they are both rare and unpredictable, and hence should not form part of your decision making process - ie: God may help you if you jump out of an airplane without a parachute, but the odds are you're going to splat.

Having said that, there doesn't appear to be any particular *downside* in hoping for miracles, be they divine intervention, sudden medical breakthroughs, Deus ex machina events that save your storyline when it goes off track, or the intervention of aliens.

Frankly, I'm about as skeptical an agnostic as you can get without being a card carrying atheist, and I simply don't grok the problem. Someone wants to believe in miracles? As long as you're not giving some jackass your life savings because he says he can 'lay hands' on you to cure your cancer, I fail to see the problem. Seriously, why do you *care* what someone else believes?

@strat

I think the only person there's conflict with is obiwan (unless I've misunderstood him again)

The miracle that Xapi is referring to would be the happening of a extraordinary phenomenon. If the miracle is connected to a certain divine being, than we would have to conclude that the divine being is unfair, if miracles only happen to few people and also rarely.

is that a bit subjective.

@ Furball:

Yes of course it is an extraordinary phenomenon. Fairness is really subjective, but if such a being that grants miracles in that way exists, you can say he's either unfair, or he "works in misterious ways".

@abgemacht:

"I'm with Xapi on that one.

If you're really beyond all hope, I'd be willing to bet that even most militant atheists will reach out to some unknown. Because, it's either that, or give up and humans didn't get where they are by giving up."

Exactly, human beings didn't get where they are by giving up...which seems to raise an issue with your first point, namely, that we at the most extreme despair give up or hope for a miracle, and if you make the statement we CAN'T give up, then it would seem as though that means we cannot allow for that possibility.

But barring an acceptance of a religion, this raises a problem--if we cannot give up, that would seem to imply that we then look to a miracle.

But surely we've already faced this low where it's "give up or miracle!" many times before in human history...many wars and genocides and the like can just be conceived of right off of the top of ones head, so many it doesn't seem worth it to list them.

Hence we KNOW we've reached the point of "give up or miracle!"

HOWEVER...

Do we have ONE FULLPY PROVABLE instance of a miracle?

I would say not...but then we seem to be in a conundrum given your "give up or miracle!" clause, as you don not allow for the former and we cannot allow for (again barring the acceptance of a religion) the occurance of the latter in history.

So since you claim we cannot give up and I would argue there is no provable evidence for a miracle, I submit we are left with the option that I would champion, namely, a Schopenhauerian or Nietzschean Will to Life/Will to Power in which the strongest drive is eitehr to live by any means necesary or to control and have power by any means necessary (you can choose which one) and that face with Option A: Give Up and Option B: Miracle! the human race has, will, and should choose instead Option C: Find Your Own Way To Accomplish The Seemingly Impossible (SEEMINGLY being the operative word...a century ago a trip to the moon would have seemed impossible, as would have organ transpalnts and the Internet and the Chicago Cubs going 102 years and counting without a World Series win...time proves the "impossible" many times--but that doesn't necessitate a miracle to do and doesn't mean we either need or should want them.)

@strat - " ie: God may help you if you jump out of an airplane without a parachute, but the odds are you're going to splat."

+1 for the great visual!