Henke 2022ci

Science Cannot Demonstrate Any Past Miracles

Kevin R. Henke

September 15, 2022

In Henke (2022b), I wrote the following about verifying history and the supernatural:

“According to his second essay, Lundahl (2022b), there are two ways to verify the existence of the supernatural; namely, metaphysics and history. He is definitely wrong to claim that history is capable of verifying the supernatural. C.S. Lewis (1960, p. 2), a source used by Lundahl (2022a), even agrees with me that “history can never convince us that a miracle occurred.” We can never rule out the strong possibility that “witnesses” to a past “supernatural event” outright lied and made-up a story, or misinterpreted what they saw. These are the bases of Hypotheses #3 and #4 for the Talking Snake, which Lundahl (2022c) utterly fails to adequately address as discussed in Section 5.0 of this essay.

Lewis (1960, p. 87) is also correct when he states that the “progress of science” has not eliminated the possibility of miracles and that science has not demonstrated that miracles are impossible. However, again, Lewis (1960, pp. 17-85) fails to demonstrate that human reasoning or another other process involves the supernatural. He also failed to realize that the burden of evidence for miracles are on those that argue for miracles. Despite his often vague rambling, Lewis (1960) presents no evidence of miracles.

The only way to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural is to have it demonstrated under strictly controlled conditions with multiple investigators from diverse backgrounds. These investigations would certainly involve logic and mathematics, but not any unnecessary pedantic and flawed metaphysical arguments.

As an example, someone might claim that he witnessed a “prophet” raising a cat from the dead. Obviously, this claim could be a lie or a misinterpretation. So, how could anyone confirm that this prophet has the ability to raise animals from the dead? The only reliable way is to test the prophet under strictly controlled conditions. First, you collect a DNA sample from a cat that has just died. Get three veterinarians to independently confirm that the cat is indeed dead. Next, place the cat in a well-secured storage area where it can rot for a week. Then under strictly controlled conditions involving videos, get the prophet to raise the cat from the dead. If the cat comes back to life, immediately collect another DNA sample to confirm that it’s the same cat.

Let’s say that someone was actually able on their own without technological assistance to resurrect a cat from the dead. Perhaps, he lays his hands on dead animals, prays, and in all cases the animals come back to life. Now, some superskeptics might simply argue that the individual has discovered a new, but totally natural, way of resurrecting the dead and that the supernatural remains undemonstrated. For example, someone might argue that aliens from space could have hidden advanced technologies or natural powers that would allow them to resurrect dead animals even after a week. The process would look supernatural to our primitive minds even though natural law was not violated. It is said that advanced technologies appear as “magic” to less technical societies. If this is a genuine concern, have the “prophet” do a bigger task, such as producing a complete solar system from nothing within a light year of Earth. The prophet could be given six days to do it. Now, someone might groundlessly speculate that in a million years people might develop the technology to raise the dead or create solar systems from nothing – ex nihilo creation. Maybe, but if humans every gain the ability through either technology, now unknown natural powers or magic to raise the dead or create entire solar systems from nothing; that is, utterly control space and time, then they might meet the definitions of a god and they might deserve the right to be called gods. However, that doesn’t mean that they deserve worship as gods. Their moral character still may be quite human and flawed. Nevertheless, I’m skeptical that humans will ever be able to do ex nihilo creation and resurrect the decayed dead.

Now, I fully understand that a god, prophet, psychic, ghost, demon, or angel probably would never agree to submit to testing, but this is the only way to verify the supernatural. So, believers in the supernatural are in the unfortunate position of not being able to demonstrate that their claims are real. Too bad for them. Nevertheless, skeptics have no rational reason to lower their standards so that believers’ likely nonsense could be labeled as reality. Advocates of the supernatural have to find some way to meet strict scientific standards and demonstrate their claims.” [my emphasis]

Lundahl (2022m) then comments on the bolded paragraph of this section:

“Thank you. Henke however seems to think it has eliminated the possibility of historically verifying miracles. However, the view Henke has on history as shown from his discussion of Romulus, is not a progress of historic science, it is a fad considered as valid paradigm by historians.”

You’re welcome. However, no, my view of investigating the past is not a “fad”, but a rational approach that is required for historical geology, paleontology, archeology, anthropology, forensic science, written human histories or any other discipline that involves determining what happened in the past. My approach to history is based on the absolute necessity of being skeptical of any claim until there is good evidence to confirm the claim. This rational approach does not include blindly believing whatever the “earliest known audience” might have believed or trying to classify myths and fables into irrelevant “divine myths” and “heroic legends” categories. Although miracles might be possible, it’s far more likely that any claim of a past miracle is based on lies, exaggerations, misunderstandings and/or hearsay rather than a miracle actually occurred (also see Henke 2022br). As Lewis (1960, p. 162) correctly summarizes Hume:

“A miracle is therefore the most improbable of all events. It is always more probable that the witnesses were lying or mistaken than that a miracle occurred.”

So, Mr. Lundahl, how can the remaining evidence of a past event be used to demonstrate that the event was a miracle when the critical evidence is rarely complete enough for such an evaluation and when any historical claims and “eyewitness testimony” of a miracle could easily be due to lies, exaggerations, misunderstandings and hearsay? Any miraculous claim must be verified under strictly controlled laboratory conditions Henke (2022b), which rarely, if ever, happen with past claims of miracles. Again, any claim must be met with skepticism until it’s supported with overwhelming evidence. For past events, especially events that occurred hundreds or thousands of years ago, demonstrating that a particular miracle actually occurred back then is extremely difficult. Many people would want us to simply take the Bible at its word and accept whatever miracles that are mentioned in it. However, why should we trust the Bible when no one can demonstrate with valid external evidence that the Bible is absolutely free of lies, exaggerations, misunderstandings and hearsay?

Reference:

Lewis, C.S. 1960. Miracles, 2^nd ed., printed 1974: Harper One: HarperCollinsPublishers, 294pp.