The 'Alternate Explanation Fallacy' does indeed seem to be a fallacy: it is indeed rational to at least be sceptical about the veracity of testimony about extraordinary events, and to remind ourselves of the ways that tall tales get promulgated even by the best intentioned folk, but this can't disprove the idea that it was valid and a miracle occurred.
But I don't see how reference to it addresses Flew's 'problem of identifying miracles'. That problem, to recall, has to do with the difficulty we have in telling whether extraordinary event A has a) a natural explanation of a sort we've not yet even dreamt of from b) only a supernatural explanation. Flew simply rejects your move from 'there is no known cause, and plenty of reasons to think such a cause [of A] is impossible' to 'there are no alternate explanations [of A]'. He's saying: how do we know that there's not unknown unknowns here? How do we know that those reasons of yours won't turn out to be uncompelling in the final analysis of future science?
In effect he's offering a challenge to your 'we know such things [as Lazarus recomposing] can't be done [other than solely through divine action]'. Like, maybe you just *believe* it can't be done, but... it can! (I mean 'believe' here in the ordinary sense in which you may rightly or wrongly believe the cat is in the next room not upstairs, and not in your more specific sense of belief as act or decision.)
With what certainty do we say 'That just *can't* have come about through natural causes?' If someone says 'Well, it goes against everything we know and understand!' Flew will just say 'Well, yes, I know, but so what?'
Now, it seems to me, and regardless of what we think about the possibility or fact of miracles, Flew must be wrong. But the question is: why? I'm not going to try to answer that - but I do want to note another (more Humean) difficulty that comes along with addressing it. Which is: why wouldn't any scepticism about whether it was possible that A be naturally caused also give us reason to doubt A's actual obtaining? As we ordinarily talk about 'natural possibility', it would seem to.
Excellent points. The thing to recall is that belief is always an act. We believe (or most of us do) that there is no known cause that can reanimate rotted flesh in the year 30. It remains a logical possibility such a natural cause does (did) exist. (Like in many supposed modern medical miracles.)
It is a logical possibility that, say, Antarians from three galaxies away used a healing ray on Lazarus. You can go on like that forever. Or Flew can. But there is no evidence for any of these possibilities except desire.
The point, the answer, is that if you take Flew's side or the Christian side, you are still left with moving from uncertainty to belief, which is an act. This move cannot be escaped. All belief requires faith.
About observations being uncertain, here's a brief response:
Me, too!!
"Soon it will be Christmas, where we celebrate the miracle of miracles. In this I have faith."
Indeed. Faith is the greatest gift from God.
I liked this a whole lot!
Fools for Christ, Knights of Faith, whatever you call us, we choose to believe.
Choosing faith amidst a universe of doubt is a commonplace, undeniable miracle.
Billions of miracles, hundreds of billions of eye witnesses.
What's to argue?
Merry Christmas, Matt!
Merry Christmas to you, too, Roger.
The 'Alternate Explanation Fallacy' does indeed seem to be a fallacy: it is indeed rational to at least be sceptical about the veracity of testimony about extraordinary events, and to remind ourselves of the ways that tall tales get promulgated even by the best intentioned folk, but this can't disprove the idea that it was valid and a miracle occurred.
But I don't see how reference to it addresses Flew's 'problem of identifying miracles'. That problem, to recall, has to do with the difficulty we have in telling whether extraordinary event A has a) a natural explanation of a sort we've not yet even dreamt of from b) only a supernatural explanation. Flew simply rejects your move from 'there is no known cause, and plenty of reasons to think such a cause [of A] is impossible' to 'there are no alternate explanations [of A]'. He's saying: how do we know that there's not unknown unknowns here? How do we know that those reasons of yours won't turn out to be uncompelling in the final analysis of future science?
In effect he's offering a challenge to your 'we know such things [as Lazarus recomposing] can't be done [other than solely through divine action]'. Like, maybe you just *believe* it can't be done, but... it can! (I mean 'believe' here in the ordinary sense in which you may rightly or wrongly believe the cat is in the next room not upstairs, and not in your more specific sense of belief as act or decision.)
With what certainty do we say 'That just *can't* have come about through natural causes?' If someone says 'Well, it goes against everything we know and understand!' Flew will just say 'Well, yes, I know, but so what?'
Now, it seems to me, and regardless of what we think about the possibility or fact of miracles, Flew must be wrong. But the question is: why? I'm not going to try to answer that - but I do want to note another (more Humean) difficulty that comes along with addressing it. Which is: why wouldn't any scepticism about whether it was possible that A be naturally caused also give us reason to doubt A's actual obtaining? As we ordinarily talk about 'natural possibility', it would seem to.
Richard,
Excellent points. The thing to recall is that belief is always an act. We believe (or most of us do) that there is no known cause that can reanimate rotted flesh in the year 30. It remains a logical possibility such a natural cause does (did) exist. (Like in many supposed modern medical miracles.)
It is a logical possibility that, say, Antarians from three galaxies away used a healing ray on Lazarus. You can go on like that forever. Or Flew can. But there is no evidence for any of these possibilities except desire.
The point, the answer, is that if you take Flew's side or the Christian side, you are still left with moving from uncertainty to belief, which is an act. This move cannot be escaped. All belief requires faith.
About observations being uncertain, here's a brief response:
https://twitter.com/FamedCelebrity/status/1606421730641448960