When it comes to miracles, I always fall on David Hume’s brilliant philosophical evaluation.
According to Hume; we would all agree that, a miracle is something out of the ordinary—meaning it’s something that rarely happens.
If something commonly happens, like; human beings walking, that’s not a miracle. If suddenly, two human beings start flying—something out of the ordinary, that’s a miracle.
This is perhaps the most non-contentious explanation/definition of miracle—widely agreed on.
Hume proceeds with an example to make this point; something like:
If your friend comes from the market to tell you that, he saw your mother being beaten to death for stealing some money—and you go ahead to cry over this. And the next day your mother turns up at your door, fit and well; two things must have happened here.
1. Your friend lied or
2. There has been a miracle.
David Hume postulates that, at this stage; what any reasonable person ought to do is to employ critical thinking by asking this;
Which of the two things happens more frequently? Do people lie a lot or do miracles occur a lot? Remember, we have already established by definition that, miracles rarely happen…
Philosophically, when you are presented with two scenarios like this which you cannot for a fact or certain measure the veracity of each, the reasonable thing to do is to fall on what is more probable—not what is more rare.
Hence, a reasonable person, a deep thinker will conclude that, his friend LIED.
So when I am asked; do miracles happen, I just apply this…
Also, is it not somewhat amazing that miracles are always third party accounts—and largely, happen among the credulous?
Let’s take this into consideration; I can say without being contemptuous that the followers of Bishop Obinim are susceptible to gullibility, compared to the followers of let’s say Mensa Otabil.
And with all the miracles so much happening at Obinim’s church, is it not somewhat well positioned that miracles and gullibility sort of live in the same room?
Mostly, instead of people critically thinking and evaluating alternative reasons why something could have happened, they lazily accept things as miracles.
So if Mr. A is knocked by a car and he did not die; two people may interpret this differently, based on their analytical skills.
One would easily jump and say it’s a miracle, the work of a God or god—the other may probably look at other factors like the speed the car was travelling, chance (probability of death arising at anytime from a collusion) and other factors.
I am looking for someone who has experienced miracle and then will engage the person in a small ‘Euthyphro dilemma’ to establish the authenticity of his or her claim.
If you have experienced miracle and want to avail yourself for the dialogue, hit me up.