Would you agree with a person that told you that human testimony is not sufficient grounds for the belief in a natural event (say, that your friend was attacked by another, but there were no witnesses and it left no marks) because humans are not perfect, etc...?
If not, might that indicate the rest of your argument only holds in the case where the prior probability of miracles is extremely low (and potentially misses the crux of the disagreement between yourself and miracle-believing people)?
No, I would not agree with a person that told me that human testimony is not sufficient grounds for the belief in a natural event. There are many things that we believe based on human testimony that have not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. For example, we take the testimony of our friends and family about their lives as sufficient grounds for belief. We also take the testimony of experts in various fields as sufficient grounds for belief. In both of these cases, we trust that the person is telling the truth to the best of their knowledge and we do not require perfect certainty. The same is true for testimony about supernatural events. We can never be certain that any particular event is a miracle, but we can weigh the evidence and decide whether or not it is sufficient to believe that a miracle has occurred.
Realized I was way too vague, should clarify what I mean is that human testimony is significantly less trustworthy than most believe it to be, even including mundane and non-spiritual subjects (like court testimony, for example—even well-intentioned people trying to be accurate are far more unreliable than one would naively expect). This means we should discount it suitably with regards to all subjects, perhaps a little more so if the testimony is similar to common delusions or religions with contradictory gospel or something. I would not rely on the testimony of a single human making any sort of extremely unusual claim, if I can help it (especially if there are significant negative downsides if they’re wrong).
So yes, if someone believes miracles are extremely common, this argument wouldn’t hold, though I don’t think most believers tend to, well, believe that.
I’ve read a number of books arguing for the truth of various religions (mostly Orthodox Judaism, though I have also seen some great Islamic and Christian stuff) and they tend to emphasize how incredible, how insane it is that God would choose to take a personal interest in us through miracles (and giving us prophets, etc.). Some books even specifically talk about how unlikely it is that anyone would lie about such improbable events, as the proof that such events must have happened as reported! After all, why would someone who is deliberately lying and afraid of being caught make up such specific and bizarre details like are seen throughout the Bible?…
Would you agree with a person that told you that human testimony is not sufficient grounds for the belief in a natural event (say, that your friend was attacked by another, but there were no witnesses and it left no marks) because humans are not perfect, etc...?
If not, might that indicate the rest of your argument only holds in the case where the prior probability of miracles is extremely low (and potentially misses the crux of the disagreement between yourself and miracle-believing people)?
No, I would not agree with a person that told me that human testimony is not sufficient grounds for the belief in a natural event. There are many things that we believe based on human testimony that have not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. For example, we take the testimony of our friends and family about their lives as sufficient grounds for belief. We also take the testimony of experts in various fields as sufficient grounds for belief. In both of these cases, we trust that the person is telling the truth to the best of their knowledge and we do not require perfect certainty. The same is true for testimony about supernatural events. We can never be certain that any particular event is a miracle, but we can weigh the evidence and decide whether or not it is sufficient to believe that a miracle has occurred.
Realized I was way too vague, should clarify what I mean is that human testimony is significantly less trustworthy than most believe it to be, even including mundane and non-spiritual subjects (like court testimony, for example—even well-intentioned people trying to be accurate are far more unreliable than one would naively expect). This means we should discount it suitably with regards to all subjects, perhaps a little more so if the testimony is similar to common delusions or religions with contradictory gospel or something. I would not rely on the testimony of a single human making any sort of extremely unusual claim, if I can help it (especially if there are significant negative downsides if they’re wrong).
So yes, if someone believes miracles are extremely common, this argument wouldn’t hold, though I don’t think most believers tend to, well, believe that.
I’ve read a number of books arguing for the truth of various religions (mostly Orthodox Judaism, though I have also seen some great Islamic and Christian stuff) and they tend to emphasize how incredible, how insane it is that God would choose to take a personal interest in us through miracles (and giving us prophets, etc.). Some books even specifically talk about how unlikely it is that anyone would lie about such improbable events, as the proof that such events must have happened as reported! After all, why would someone who is deliberately lying and afraid of being caught make up such specific and bizarre details like are seen throughout the Bible?…
The Catholic church requires a person to facilitate two miracles to gain sainthood. That makes miracles more common then those events in the bible.