Posted by Karen on: 07.31.2007 /
Last week, we discussed evidence of miracles in this thread, entitled, “Atheist Responses to Supernatural Testimony.”
I thought it would be germane to follow up that discussion with a post I wrote recently for the de-conversion blog, where I’m an occasional contributor. Here’s what I wrote over there:
I just finished reading a terrific book called “The Ghost Map,” a nonfiction account of the 1854 cholera epidemic in London. The story follows a scientist and a clergyman whose investigations pinpointed the source of the outbreak that killed hundreds of people within a week. Their work saved untold thousands of lives: Due to them, London never again suffered a cholera epidemic.
Before Dr. John Snow and Rev. Henry Whitehead proved that cholera is a water-borne illness, there were myriad theories about how it was transmitted and cured. The patent-medicine industry spent huge amounts on advertising all sorts of quack “remedies,” writes author Steven Johnson:
“Ordinary people had long cultivated their folk remedies and home-spun diagnoses, but until newspapers came along, they didn’t have a forum beyond word of mouth to share their discoveries. At the same time, the medical division of labor that we now largely take for granted - researchers analyze diseases and potential cures, doctors prescribe those cures based on their best assessment of the research - had only reached an embryonic state in the Victorian age. … For the most part, this meant that the newspapers of the day were filled with sometimes comic, and almost always useless, promises of easy cures for diseases that proved to be far more intractable than the quacks suggested.” pg. 46
Some of the cures advertised for cholera included castor oil, disinfectant sprays, opium, ether, laudanum, linseed oil, hot compresses, heroin, leeches, laxatives and brandy, Johnson says. What no one ever proposed is the cure that actually works: hydration.
What was going on here? Reliance on anecdotal evidence. A particular cure would be administered and - lo and behold - the patient would recover! Someone would get a patent on the treatment and hawk it as a “miracle drug.” What people didn’t realize is that anecdotal evidence is next to useless: People recover spontaneously due to circumstances that have nothing to do with the “miracle drug.” Modern science teaches that valid data must be collected through rigorously controlled methodology and in large enough numbers to discount randomness and coincidence.
I often see religious people point to anecdotal evidence to “prove” the validity of their belief system. I understand the impulse: I grew up practically worshipping personal testimonies. “Jesus rescued me from sin,” “My life was terrible until I found the Lord,” “God healed me after I prayed.” Of course these experiences are meaningful for those who tell them. But are they really valid “evidence” for others to accept a particular truth?
My thinking on this changed radically around 2002, when I realized that all religious people recount personal experiences, mystical healings and life-changing “encounters with the divine.” My church taught me that the personal spiritual experiences of Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, New Agers, Scientologists and others were Satanic deceptions designed to trick these people into believing wrong doctrine. After all, Satan masquerades as an “angel of the light,” according to scripture.
But as my blinders came off, I contemplated: If I considered pro-Christian anecdotal evidence persuasive, how could I discount the anecdotal evidence of other groups?
My spiritual experiences couldn’t be verified by anyone other than me, yet I expected others to take them on face value. If I wanted that kind of automatic credibility for myself, how could I be so arrogant as to deny it to others? Why should I discount the spiritual experiences of people from other religious traditions? In the end, I couldn’t. That left me with two choices: Either everyone’s sincerely believed, dearly held spiritual experiences are equally valid, or none of them are. This realization was the beginning of the end of my religious belief.
Today, anecdotal evidence doesn’t persuade me of the truth, just as it didn’t persuade Snow and Whitehead when they investigated the 1854 cholera epidemic. I’m glad to be in such distinguished company.
Please feel free to comment on my post. If you’d like, let us know how your own religious tradition regards spiritual experiences.
Comment by: Stephan
1I don’t know that first-person mystical experiences are required to be a Christian, but at the same time I don’t think they are rare or difficult to find. I’m sure many people keep them to themselves. I kept one of my deepest experiences to myself for years, and then only shared it with a few people.
I certainly would not call them “proof”, but I think they add validity, and they are evidence in the same way first-person testimony is considered legal evidence. It may not be the strongest evidence on its own, but when corroborated by several others it becomes stronger. This is why I think sharing our stories with others is so important.
I think God can work through whatever channel He wants, and if He speaks to a Hindu or Muslim, that’s fine with me. It does not make me think Christianity is any less true, but it makes me believe that there is some truth in all major religions, and all truth comes from God.
I don’t believe all testimonies from Christians, so I don’t have to believe all those from other religions. Just like any story someone might tell, I consider the circumstances, the source, other evidence for an against. I also know that truth is not dependent on me believing it. If I disbelieve something that turns out to be true, it does not affect the truthfulness of it at all.
I think in this case atheists are forced to be closed-minded. They cannot allow themselves to believe any story that includes a supernatural element. I am free to apply criteria to decide whether or not to believe something rather than dismiss it out of hand simply because it does not fit my worldview.
I’m sorry you felt the need to wear blinders. They are not standard issue for all believers.
I understand your point about anecdotal evidence. But simply because anecdotal evidence is not always reliable does not mean that anecdotal evidence is never reliable.
Comment by: Karen
2This doesn’t apply to all atheists - I’m just speaking for myself - but I wouldn’t say I’m closed-minded so much as I’m skeptical.
I don’t have a mindset that says “I won’t believe anything supernatural no matter how much evidence is presented for it.” That would be closed-minded and would be totally counter-productive and useless to me.
I start out with a mindset that says “I’ll believe supernatural experiences when I see some good empirical evidence to support them.” Like the study that was done on intercessory prayer a couple years ago. If that had come up showing positive correlations, I would definitely have been intrigued by that and open to learning more and re-evaluating the power of prayer.
In the book I mentioned, Snow and Whitehead gathered very detailed and scrupulously verified data on when and where people contracted cholera, how long they had it, and whether they lived or died. Then they transferred that data onto a map (thus the title of the book) and were able to isolate the source of the infectious outbreak to a particular water pump.
That didn’t prove their theory - they had to do a lot of additional work - but it was the first attempt to move beyond anecdotal evidence and of course it eventually paid off with tremendous results.
By the way, a side benefit of their research is that it negated a lot of class prejudice in the society of that time. Upper class people all believed that poor people got more disease and spread disease. Their data showed that both rich and poor got cholera equally - so the snobby belief that “dirty” poor people were disease-carriers was dealt a major blow.
I’m still not sure what criteria you apply, though, and how you would apply it consistently.
I know a lot of people, living here in L.A., who follow New Age spirituality. They refer to god as “positive energy” and they have experiences - healings, answers to prayer, improvement in their emotional outlook - that sound just as plausible as the experiences of the traditional religions.
Does hearing about those kinds of spiritual experiences make you think that god speaks through the New Age movement as well as through traditional religions?
Comment by: David H
3I have never seen a verifiable miracle, but I have heard about many miraculous events. Being a natural skeptic, I tend to not give too much credit to those of which I have heard. But on the other hand, I don’t dismiss those events or miracles in general. Just because it doesn’t seem possible, doesn’t make it impossible. Likewise, just because someone says it’s true doesn’t mean it has actually occurred.
Certain segments of Christianity seem to make far too much of miracles. Perhaps they see them as proof there is a God. I have been to churches where people praised God loud and long every week for found car keys (that they would lose again) and relatives healed of all sorts of ailments (only to eventually get sick again). The randomness of miracles makes them a rather poor proof to my mind. I don’t disbelieve that Jesus and the apostles could do the miraculous on demand, but I have never met anyone in my life who could do that. And I have seen people perish who certainly believed enough to get a miracle they badly needed.
I have also heard many stories off magical events done by Sufi’s and Shamans of various types. Given nothing more than reports to go on, I can’t discount them and believe in the possibility of Christian miracles. There is either the possibility of validity for them or there is none for any.
I have come to believe that God is far less involved in daily life than my parents taught me. It appears that the world largely operates according to its own rules and God does not consistently intervene. I believe that God has largely tied his own hands when it comes to most of what happens in the world. He cares, but doesn’t intervene. I have trouble rationalizing a God who only helps when he feels like it. It seems much more realistic that if he is there that he holds himself largely in check because this world and my life are mine. The question isn’t what will God do with them; the question is what will I do with them. I can’t wait for miracles to sort everything out, because they seem far rarer than winning lottery tickets.
The closest I have to a miracle is my life. My father is an ostensibly spiritual man who spent my childhood physically and sexually abusing his children and others. But besides physical beatings, he constantly hammered at the psyche of his children trying to make us feel worthless. We could never do anything well, we were destined to be failures, and we would never be loved. Despite that, I chose at various points in my life to not be the failure I was expected to be. I chose to confront my father physically to make him stop; I chose to excel in school; I chose face the damage of my childhood. Therapists have told me it is miraculous that I was aware of the opportunity to make such choices. I believe that God was with me at those times, but I’m not sure he was anything more than a companion on that journey. Because if he was going to save me with a miracle, I could have used that before my brother committed suicide, before my older sister was maimed for life, before so much of the damage was done.
Perhaps it makes me a bad Christian to believe that most “miracles” are due more to the power of the human mind. Perhaps it makes me a poor witness to say that Christians would do better to stop speaking about and waiting for the miraculous and start living like each day is such a divine gift. And perhaps it makes me just plain crazy that I don’t believe in a God who meddles, but I do believe in a God who cares. If so, then I am those things.
Comment by: Stephan
4Do you know anyone who would describe themself as closed-minded? I don’t. They would use terms like “reasonable” and “skeptical”. But the fact remains that some people are closed-minded. They just don’t admit it.
I said above that I believe all truth is from God, and He can speak through whatever channel He chooses. Who am I to say what God can or can’t do?
I agree with David H. that miracles are mysterious and that God most often takes a hands-off approach to the world. But I also believe that miracles happen, and that they are sometimes cloaked in seemingly “natural” occurrences.
As an example, if I push a rock down a hill, it is gravity, a natural law, acting on the rock. But I am the one that initiated the action. If you are standing at the bottom of the hill watching the rock tumble, you have no idea what started it, but you can observe the natural occurrence of gravity acting on that rock.
I believe there have been times in my life where seemingly natural occurrences have worked together in ways that are beyond natural. While none of the things that happened defy a natural explanation, I still believe that is a miracle.
Comment by: David H
5I tend to agree with this. However, it is totally unverifiable. The personal aspect of such miracles doesn’t invalidate them to me, but it makes they very wobbly as proof of anything to the skeptical. As such, I tend not to offer my miracles as evidence of God to anyone. If they are evidence to me, then I should reflect it in my life. That may not push a rock down a hill, but it might dislodge a pebble now and then.
Comment by: Karen
6See, I have no problem with belief in that kind of “deist” god. It’s certainly possible that it exists - which is exactly why I call myself an agnostic/weak atheist. Science currently can’t rule out a god who started things in motion and is undetectable to us - neither can any atheist.
Theism is another story. That I can’t see myself returning to - though who knows? - because it just seems so illogical and out of sync with what I perceive happening all around me.
I remember you talking about this history before. I’m so sorry you went through it. :-(
You know, I absolutely love your honesty, David H. I’m sure I’ve said this before, but it’s really rare and so refreshing. I’m so glad you made the choices that you did.
As an atheist, I might say that the credit for making those decisions should rightly go to you, for it is you who could have chosen a far more destructive path, with far different consequences, and that would have been perfectly understandable. So, I give you a lot of credit.
But I certainly respect your conclusion that god was a companion and encouragement on your journey. It’s not in my purview to discredit that “miracle” - I haven’t walked in your footsteps.
Comment by: Karen
7I take people’s descriptions of themselves at face value, without putting my own interpretation on it from an “outsiders” perspective. That just feels like the most honest and respectful way to treat people, for me.
And I totally respect that. I wouldn’t contradict you, nor would I want to.
Comment by: David H
8I don’t think we are very far apart on this issue. Many Christians may consider it heresy, but I don’t expect Moses to part the Red Sea’s in my path or Jesus to touch me and stop the bleeding. God didn’t cause the problems in my life and I don’t expect him to provide miraculous solutions. The question with God or without him is: what am I going to do with what I’m given? My life is the only gift I was given by my parents and the only gift I can give anyone else — God, my children, or anyone else.
But I don’t believe in coincidence. I feel as if many events in my life helped prepare me for the steeper slopes that were looming before me, even if I wasn’t aware of them. Such “miracles” could be all in my head. I can’t speak of them in the same way that I have heard many around me speak of miracles during my life in and around the Christian Church. If they are real to me, then I should live like I believe in the being(s) behind them.
Comment by: Karen
9Yes, that makes plenty of sense to me.
Comment by: Doreen A Mannion
10I think this is a case of two sides that can never come together. For example, let’s say Dot has a medical evaluation that shows she has a clear case of XYZ. There are multiple blood test results. There are multiple MRIs, CAT scans, X-rays, neurological tests, etc.
Dot goes to a healing service the day her latest tests show everything is still bad for her. In the service, she feels a transformation has occurred. Perhaps she regains her cognitive abilities. She calls her MD and he says this is not possible, come in immediately.
Dot gets all the tests she just had, the same ones she’s had every 6 months for 2 years. The results are dramatically different.
Now to some, this may seem like a miracle. To others, a faith healing. To most atheists, meaningless - it just means the doctors don’t know what happened in other words, there is a scientific explanation, we just haven’t discovered it yet.
I struggle with this “prove it” mentality. I only have anecdotal evidence, for example, that in 1969 a rocket went from earth to the moon, landed, and men walked on the moon. I have no proof. Therefore, I choose to believe this did not happen. (Which if I did choose this, would make most consider me a nut case. Well, in MOST circles, anyway.)
Comment by: Karen
11Sorry, I don’t understand this. Obviously we have far more than anecdotal evidence for the existence of the Apollo program, right?
Or are you just using that as an example of conspiracy theory kooks?
Comment by: Karen
12Sorry, I meant to include this as well:
Right. Spontaneous recovery does happen, and we just don’t know why yet.
Where something like that would become meaningful to me as proof of supernatural influence is if doctors started to see patterns of spontaneous recovery. Say, Dot’s case begins to replicate itself and there are many cases of unexplained healings after patients go to this healer - more than can be accounted for as coincidences according to statistical models.
That kind of anecdotal evidence is useful because it can be gathered, investigated, studied, and analyzed. Hypotheses can be proposed and falsified and revised. If statistically significant evidence persists, then a theory for what’s going on can be devised, one of which might be that supernatural processes are taking place.
That’s the beginning of scientific exploration. That’s even how Snow and Whitehead established the cause of the cholera outbreak: “Hey look, all these people using this water pump got sick, and all the people down the street working at the brewery - who drank beer all day, not water - didn’t get sick. Let’s look at that anecdotal evidence and figure out if it’s significant.”
Comment by: Doreen A Mannion
13I wrote, and Karen responded:
“We” does not apply to me, just like “we” does not apply to an atheist when Christians say “this happened to us.” I personally only have anecdotal evidence of the Apollo program.
Comment by: Doreen A Mannion
14Karen wrote
This is why Dot (not her real name) chose to allow her case to be published in the medical literature. No one has ever had the brain regenerate the way hers did. Maybe no one ever will. Maybe they’ll figure out scientifically why hers did, maybe they won’t.
Comment by: Karen
15Doreen:
Ah, okay, I see what you mean but I’m not sure I get your larger point.
I mean, presumably if you were really doubtful of the veracity of the facts, you could go into the National Air and Space Museum, or the National Archives, the Smithsonian etc and find a plethora of solid evidence to support the facts of the Apollo program.
We don’t have access to that kind of trove of factual materials when it comes to spiritual experiences.
Comment by: Karen
16Doreen:
True enough. Not too long ago I listened to a lecture series on the brain and it was totally fascinating. Researchers are really just now starting to truly understand the brain and how it functions, but a lot of it is still unknown.
The New York Times science section - which is the highlight of my newspaper reading week - had a story this week about the subconscious and how much it influences our decision making without our conscious brain even being aware of it! It was really fascinating, and kind of scary to think how many of our reactions and choices come out of that lower-level “reptilian” brain center.
Comment by: julie marie
17ohh…but that explains so many quesitonable decisions! Just think– a brand new excuse. Its the reptilian brain center talking!
Comment by: Karen
18Yes, that would be very convenient, wouldn’t it? Kind of like a Twinkie Defense for the New Millennium!
;-)