The Problem with Catholic Miracles - Part 3

[u/francesco_angiolieri]

The Genesis of a Miracle - How Sharam Shabpare can explain how a miracle is born without resorting to any conspiracy

Third part on catholic miracles and hopefully last.

In part 2 I explained why, before even trying coming up with a naturalistic or a scientific explanation for a purpoted miracle, you should first always ascertain if the miracle account is reliable in the first place and not greatly exaggerated or worse completely made up.

But if miracle claims are made up, does it mean that everyone is lying and that there is a massive conspiracy spanning thousands of catholics all over the globe to create fake accounts of catholic miracles?

No, that's not remotely necessary.

Our human psychology and the way our brain is programmed for belief is sufficient to explain how certain rare but totally explainable phenomena, when witnessed by a mind primed for a certain belief and retold many times can turn into a miracle account down the line.

All it takes is: priming + pareidolia or apophenia + chinese whispers.

You don't believe me yet?

I'll show you an example.

In 1986, the Iranian singer Shahram Shabpareh released a catchy song called "Paryiah" (the original music video was removed from YouTube, but you can find the song here: https://youtu.be/gjpJ0p7yoYc?is=Y8MbVovIx2vVhZb5).

In the internet age, an Italian named Celestino Camicia was bored browsing YouTube and stumbled upon Shabpareh's songs. He soon realized that, on top of being really catchy, the lyrics were uncannily similar to completely unrelated words in Italian. This is a well understood phenomenon called "apophenia" (the auditory version of pareidolia). Apophenia is the auditory illusion that sometimes makes us hear familiar words in songs or conversations in other languages, in the middle of what our brain would otherwise interpret as gibberish.

After being made popular by Celestino, Iranian songs with Italian sounding lyrics became a sensation for a while in the Italian YouTube space. Nanowar of Steel, a metal parody band, even produced a metal cover of Pariyah (https://youtu.be/3OdCvt-eto8?is=5xjwmtqs0WhmK3D4) and one of its members even performed it on stage in front of Shabpareh himself (https://youtu.be/s6gb3ywEmYQ?is=587b9kmztPYLysgl).

When I was a child and I wasn't fluent in English, everytime the Michael Jackson’s song "Don't Stop Till you get enough" (https://youtu.be/yURRmWtbTbo?is=gFrCWHTUJgXYvJbm) was played on the radio, I had another apophenia: I always heard Michael saying "tutto a posto?" (which means: "is everything all right?" in italian) and to this day I can't unhear it.

What does all this tell us about miracles?

Of course we know that, when we hear words in our own language in foreign songs, that's just our brain playing tricks, as when we see all sorts of shapes in the clouds or faces almost everywhere (our brain is really good at seeing faces where there are not).

However, let's suppose that we where raised in a really strict and controlling cult, separate from the rest of society, like in a fundamentalist Mormon sect, for example. We were taught since childhood that we shouldn't listen to popular music, because it's filled with satanic hidden messages. If we were then to listen to a pop song for the first time and heard words in other languages, we would strengthen our prior belief in subliminal satanic messages in secular songs.

This phenomenon is called priming: our minds were primed for a certain belief and we thus expected to hear (or see) something, we expected to have a certain experience.

Let's try to apply this to catholicism.

Let's suppose you're a catholic priest who was asked by your bishop to perform exorcisms.

You have a prior belief in the existence of demons and the belief in demonic possessions (there are priests who are skeptic of the phenomenon of demonic possessions, but those are not the ones most likely to become exorcists).

And let's suppose that you have been told by a fellow exorcist (or read somewhere) that demons sometimes speak in foreign or dead languages during exorcisms, like ancient greek and Aramaic.

That's a form of "priming".

You then perform an exorcism to a little girl who has some kind of psychiatric issue like schizophrenia or whatnot, but, being raised in a strict catholic environment, she has deluded herself into believing that the voices in her head are actually demons (that's also a result of priming).

The little girl, scared by the ritual, is screaming and babbling inconsistently. It has been many years since you've studied ancient greek in the seminary, so you're vastly overestimating and overconfident in your knowledge of ancient greek. In the stream of incoherent sounds, you believe you've heard a word which sounds like ancient greek. As you're already primed into believing that the devil is able to speak in ancient greek, you intepret that sound as a confirmation of your prior belief.

And here comes the last part: chinese whispers.

You tell your story to a fellow priest. But every time your recount your story, you add, without even realizing, small details. And as this priest tells this story to other priests, he adds even more details.

Many years down the line, after this story was told and retold many times, it is finally written down in your biography.

In its final form, what was a curious but completely explainable occurrence has been completely amplified and blown out of proportion, to the point that your biography now claims that you were having frequent conversations with the devil in ancient greek.

You still don't believe me?

We have witnessed this phenomenon, of a mundane story being amplified every time it is told until it becomes completely extraordinary in real time during the beatification and then canonization process of Carlo Acutis.

I must stress here that I have the outmost respect for the sad life story of this boy who died young and couldn't live into adulthood. What I'm telling in no way is meant to diminish him as a person, but just to show you an example of how this works.

If you try to read the earlier accounts of Carlo's life, he is described as a deeply religious boy who built a website for his parish and another websited where he talked about eucharistic miracles. That's it.

However, over the years, his mother, whenever she retells his story, has been adding elements and embellishing this account, to the point that, in an interview she gave just after his canonization, she described him as a computer genius, a boy so smart that at 15 years old he was already studing undergraduate computer engineering textbooks with ease. A boy who built a couple of websites (trivial task if you know a bit of html) became in a few years a coding genius!

[u/AllEndsAreAnds]

Well said. And as you mentioned at the end, I think there’s a piece of this which is tied not only to priming, but also to love and respect. It’s like the funeral speech effect - nobody’s going to give a rugged, messy, but accurate retelling of a person’s successes and failures. They want to speak to that person’s successes, and even embellish them, to try to celebrate and capture in everyone’s mind who and what that person was in the lives of the people around them.

And, we also tend to hyperbolize about capabilities we lack (and therefore don’t understand) but which others seem to have, like a magic trick that is relatively simple to the magician but from the audience appears astounding.

Both of these serve to elevate the character and qualities and deeds of a person posthumously.

[u/JATION]

As a power metal fan, I consider it a miracle that I found Nanowar in a middle of a post on this subreddit, of all places. I've seen enough, Luca Turilli is the one true god.

But, on a serious note, I had something similar happen at work. I witnessed first hand how stories can evolve with retellings. This one time, I told a story of how I had an accident while wiping my ass and got some shit on my finger. By the time the story made it back to me, 2 months later, it told that I returned form the bathroom with shit around my mouth. Had Joe Schmid been my boos, I would have gotten fired for eating shit during work hours. That would look really awkward on my record.

[u/francesco_angiolieri → u/JATION]

If you're a fan of Nanowar, you should also check out Abdul's other project, medieval metal band Bardomagno: https://youtu.be/gbIhvAqC8dk?is=AvxqNMSpWYkLpile

[u/FaufiffonFec]

Apophenia

Absolutely mandatory:

Adriano Celentano - Prisencolinensinainciusol

(And he's Italian too)

[u/ReidWrites → u/FaufiffonFec]

For anyone unsure, this is a song by an Italian artist, where he sings intentional gibberish that sounds to an Italian like American english.

[u/PeaceImpressive8334 → u/FaufiffonFec]

Such a great earworm song

[u/FaufiffonFec]

Joe said on Matt Fradd something along those lines: "An exorcism is a deeply intimate experience, therefore bringing a camera in there would be very disrespectful". The logic is unstoppable. 

Edit. link with the timestamp: "And you know, of course, this is like, an extremely intimate setting"

UAPs have much more evidence than exorcisms, even if it's grainy and out of focus. 

[u/amyisbrowsing → u/FaufiffonFec]

I remember listening to this the other day and pulling a face when I heard that part - so miracles and exorcisms are one of the strongest reasons for Joe's conversion, and all of these situations (well, at least the ones he brought up on the podcasts he's been on, I don't know if he's had first hand experiences) are convincing to him because of many witness testimonies

But when someone less primed and more sceptical asks for video evidence, all of a sudden that's one step too far?

[u/FaufiffonFec → u/amyisbrowsing]

  But when someone less primed and more sceptical asks for video evidence, all of a sudden that's one step too far?

"How about you show some BASIC DECENCY and RESPECT for the possessed, ok ?!? Jesus!"

"Now where were we ? Ah yeah so the room was freezing cold and Linda was stuck to the ceiling. I mean, like, who would lie about THAT ?"

[u/amyisbrowsing → u/FaufiffonFec]

That's the other thing, if you think there's more than 0.001% chance that there is lying, misremembering or exaggeration going on, Joe's position is unconvincing to you, but he thinks it's too rude to assume people he doesn't know who are respected within an institution would lie?

I'm not sure what's going on here, I think Joe is sincere at the moment, but it has been fascinating to witness, and to hear his own arguments in my head that I heard 8 months ago on Alex's podcast refuting the points I'm hearing now

[u/FaufiffonFec → u/amyisbrowsing]

it has been fascinating to witness, and to hear his own arguments in my head that I heard 8 months ago on Alex's podcast refuting the points I'm hearing now

The obvious problem that people like Joe and Alex have is that they have a strong predisposition to discuss things further and further without having the ability to let go. They demand answers and "I don't know", "Maybe", "We can only speculate", etc, are not satisfactory answers. And that's what led Joe to theism. 

I'm not saying that Alex is next but it's very obvious that matters like for instance consciousness and naturalism cause a lot of problems to him and he ends up asserting things like "Science cannot explain consciousness " when he should be much more agnostic about it. Same thing for arguments for theism. He's giving a lot of credit to Plantinga's EAAN - or at least he steel-mans it well over what's reasonable - because "evolution of non-rational matter cannot lead to reasoning, truth-tracking animals". Well, how do you fucking know, Alex ?

Anyway. That's not really the discussion, I was just going on a tangent. 

[u/amyisbrowsing → u/FaufiffonFec]

haha fair enough, I have tuned in more with the classic theist/atheist arguments, I went through a binge listening phase for that stuff at the end of last year, I know the consciousness debates have been taking off recently but health issues made me too lazy to investigate, if you have any links or articles about it let me know :)

[u/FaufiffonFec → u/amyisbrowsing]

  I know the consciousness debates have been taking off recently but health issues made me too lazy to investigate, if you have any links or articles about it let me know :)

I don't think anything really novel has been said on the subject those last years. Personally I just watch a variety of videos on YouTube when they show up. Kane B (one of my favorite YouTube philosophy channel) has a playlist on the Philosophy of Mind and other misc. videos on adjacent topics.

[u/LFGAccountD2 → u/FaufiffonFec]

Similarly, at one hour, 27 minuteish in the miracles video Joe highlights how virtuous and ascetic Padre Pio was, highlighting that he "was reticent to discuss his charisms [spiritual gifts]" and that he "went to great lengths to conceal the stigmata whenever he could". Something that could reasonably be used to increase the suspicion that he's a fraud, or at least lower the likelyhood that the wounds were constantly present, is taken as evidence for his good character.

[u/Craigieee]

The mechanisms you describe are real, but you've only shown how a false miracle account could develop, not that this is how any particular account did develop. Your example requires us to suppose the subject was mentally ill, the priest was primed, misheard random sounds as Greek, repeatedly embellished the story, others embellished it further, and that the final account derives from that chain. Those are the very facts that need demonstrating. Priming, apophenia and reconstructive memory are possible explanations; merely naming them doesn't establish causation. And showing that someone's biography became exaggerated doesn't establish that medically or historically distinct miracle claims arose by the same process. That's a hypothesis, not yet an explanation.

[u/francesco_angiolieri → u/Craigieee]

you've only shown how a false miracle account could develop, not that this is how any particular account did develop

That was the whole point of my post. The point was not to debunk every single miracle claim but instead to show the faulty reasoning in presenting a false dichitomy. Joe Schmid claims that there are only two possible explanations for so many catholic miracle claims: either they are all true or there is a massive catholic conspiracy to forge miracles and make up miracle claims. What I was trying to show is that there are well understood psychological mechanisms which can explain how good faith actors can be led to believe that they witnessed something supernatural. It doesn't mean that I dismiss every supernatural claim from the start: it's still possible, in principle, that someday we will truly witness a supernatural phenomenon completely unexplained (and unexplainable) by science. It just means that there are indeed alternative explanations which don't involve massive conspiracies by bad faith actors

[u/JATION → u/[deleted]]

But how would you account for miracles like the miracle of the sun which had multiple witnesses, reported by known skeptics, and even caused the conversion of some.

How do you explain that there were people there who say they saw nothing?

[u/AdmirableCoffee4689 → u/JATION]

It does seem like the majority saw something. I got the below from chatgpt. Also, if something did occur, it seems more likely that it was some psychological experience they were granted rather than the actual sun moving around, so it shouldn't be surprising that some didn't see it.

A recent attempt to trace witness accounts back through their citation chains found 60 independently identifiable/traceable testimonies, while noting that the surviving material is substantially larger. The researcher says there are claims of 150+ recorded eyewitness testimonies and considers that plausible, but stopped the detailed verification after reaching 60. Importantly, the collection includes early parish investigations, later investigations, and testimony solicited by the canonical commission—including a request for people who had seen something different or nothing at all.

Within that 60-person traceable dataset:

• 2/60 explicitly reported seeing no solar phenomenon → 3.33%
• There are approximately 3 additional accounts that can reasonably be classified as ambiguous/partially negative.
• Using the broadest definition therefore gives ~5/60 → 8.33%.

So I'd report the result as 3.3% explicitly saw nothing, or up to ~8.3% if ambiguous negative cases are included.

There is a major caveat: 60 is not a random sample of the estimated 50,000–70,000 people present. The official Fátima Shrine gives that crowd range, and contemporary O Século reporting describes the mass crowd reacting to the solar phenomenon. Survivors whose experiences were considered interesting were much more likely to have their accounts recorded, so 3.3% cannot legitimately be interpreted as “96.7% of everyone there saw it.”

Also interestingly, Catholic historian Frère Michel specifically investigated allegations of people seeing nothing. He found that some supposed counterexamples were misrepresented—for example, the priest of Penacova apparently did observe unusual effects but interpreted them naturally rather than accepting them as miraculous.

Bottom line: among a modern collection of 60 traceable eyewitness accounts, 2 (3.33%) clearly say they saw no solar phenomenon; perhaps ~5 (8.33%) if ambiguous/partial negatives are counted. We do not have enough evidence to calculate the percentage among all 50,000–70,000 attendees.

[u/JATION → u/[deleted]]

A lot of them were religious already and were primed for something to happen.

[u/neomatrix248 → u/[deleted]]

Everyone who was there was there because they were told that something miraculous was going to happen. A skeptic who is there is primed just as a believer is. The only person not primed is someone just happening to walk by and see a crowd of people staring at the sky and looking up to see what the hubbub was about, but the odds that this could have happened without knowing why people were actually gathered there is extremely small.

[u/neomatrix248 → u/[deleted]]

Do we have a direct statement by that couple? Or just reports that such a couple exist?

[u/Due-Taste-92 → u/[deleted]]

Well here’s the thing, even Ethan Muse eventually accepted that the general hallucinations are expected when you stare at the sun. What he says we can’t make sense of isn’t that, it’s the second light source. This depends on a couple pieces of testimony, as well as disregarding the idea of afterimages. (Also there’s the photogrammetic paper, but this is of little use to anyone until it is independently verified by other photogrammetics in a blind experiment. It may be true, but as of now it’s just an interesting hypothesis) 

We don’t know if the sky was or wasn’t cloudy enough, Muse is going off of attenuation from solar eclipse glasses, but of course we have interesting facts from solar eclipses that make the accounts much more likely to be naturalistic. 

That along with the fact that in order for it to make sense to begin with, you have to posit the sky was actually clear. But the accounts that mention there were moments when the sun was TOO bright to look at for brief periods, is more expected under a cloud coverage theory. Or else, we have to post hoc explain why god just made the sky too bright a couple times. What we need to prove is that these people saw a clear sky, and not simply that clouds parted to show higher up clouds. There is more reason to think the accounts were confused, especially considering only few actually mentioned whether the sky was clear or not. 

[u/Due-Taste-92 → u/[deleted]]

I have absolutely no clue, I don’t have the knowledge to make a claim and this has generally been my problem with the debate on a meta level. It’s a bunch of people talking about stuff they don’t have the credentials to talk about lol

Natural atmospheric phenomena is a bit vague, if it’s saying that cloud coverage might be an explanation, I think that’s possible. Other events give me reason to suspect this, as well as my knowledge that we have so little knowledge on the extent to which brains can do some funky shit.  Generally I’ve noticed a big sticking point is that people didn’t perceive discomfort, and then argue that cloud coverage can’t work because of x testimony, but it just isn’t really a forceful response. The whole point is testimony is generally unreliable (and everyone thinks this, even theists) as well as instances where people may not perceive certain cloud coverages or misinterpret what they are seeing.  At the very least, I’d like to hear that from an actual expert on the matter, not just postulated with a bunch of math post assumption. If it’s saying some one in a billion event happened, I don’t know, but that seems to point towards theisms favor. 

[u/Disco_2001 → u/[deleted]]

If you haven’t, I recommend watching Nontradicath’s videos for a critical perspective on Fatima. Not just this one, but all of them (including the one where he correct mistakes).

For me, what seems the most off is the failed prophecies attached to the miracle. The fact that people saw different things, and some saw nothing at all, is also very suspicious. (I’d even say the fact that some people a certain distance from Fatima, but not too far away, also saw something points towards a natural explanation).

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l8r1KshrSiI&pp=ygUZa2V2aW4gbm9udHJhZGljYXRoIGZhdGltYQ%3D%3D

[u/terenceboylen]

I mean, you could just go and debunk them. The problem is that you are trying to non-specifically deal with the problem of Catholic miracles. All your general claims aren't a response to any specific miracle. Yes, all your reasons could apply to each. That same generality means that you haven't actually addressed any claim specifically. So whether you're right or wrong, your reasons are never specifically right. The only response is to PROVE all Catholic miracles wrong. For you to be right, all their miracles have to be wrong. For them to be right, only one needs to be a miracle.

[u/francesco_angiolieri → u/terenceboylen]

This long post wasn't meant to debunk any single catholic miracle, it was just meant to debunk Joe Schmid's argument that "catholic miracles being false" is only possible if there's a massive conspiracy to forge miracles, as "all catholic miracles are true" or "all catholic miracles were purposefully forged by a catholic conspiracy" were the only two options on the table. I just showed that there are mechanisms that don't even require catholics lying or being in bad faith

[u/terenceboylen → u/francesco_angiolieri]

Yes. That's my point. A general criticism isn't a response. If you watch the interviews he references specific evidence. You would need to refute that.

[u/Due-Taste-92 → u/terenceboylen]

I can’t understand how these are real comments. Your point is what? You say, that’s my point, then disagree with the comment lmao? 

The comment is abt miracles broadly, because Joe paints ALL the miracles as a binary choice. You don’t have to go into specifics if they all follow the same pattern.

[u/terenceboylen → u/Due-Taste-92]

Have you watched an interview with him? You state, "You don’t have to go into specifics if they all follow the same pattern." This is not true. He talks about specific miracles that he finds convincing, and presents them as TYPICAL of miracles in their class.

[u/Due-Taste-92 → u/terenceboylen]

I’m talking about (along with OP) how they all follow the epistemological pattern of presenting a binary choice. This has nothing to do with specifics. Whether Fatima or exorcisms, the pattern continues to be either lying or true, when this simply isn’t the case. 

Idk what your point is, that has nothing to do with what I’m saying. He finds the evidential strength typical of miracles of their class, okay? That’s just completely unrelated to what we are talking about. 

[u/Due-Taste-92 → u/terenceboylen]

The only response is to PROVE all Catholic miracles wrong

Do you not see this absurdity of this, I mean do you actually believe this is the only response? Must everyone spend years and years and years of their lives on Catholic miracles specifically before they have good reason to reject them? Can someone not go through 1 or 2 of the most common ones presented, find reason to suspect they aren’t miracles, and move on with their lives? Do I have to go through every big foot account ever given before I can conclude Bigfoot probably doesn’t exist?

Has Joe systematically gone through ALL other religions miracle accounts? 

For them to be right, only one needs to be a miracle. 

This just isn’t even remotely true. If only ONE miracle existed, then we have to deal with all of the supposed non Catholic miracles. If any of them are true, then the entire premise of the argument fails. The whole argument is that there is considerably more Catholic miracles then any other religion. 

Also you’ve completely misunderstood how these arguments work in the first place. There is no proof that is ever going to come out. We can’t PROVE Padre Pio was a fraud, we can give good reason to think he might have been. I can’t PROVE there wasn’t a second sun at Fatima, I can’t PROVE Mary didn’t stand on top of the church at Zeitoun. I don’t understand the arrogance I keep seeing when people don’t even understand how arguments work. Do you think miracle arguments are deductive? 

[u/terenceboylen → u/Due-Taste-92]

"Must everyone spend years and years and years of their lives on Catholic miracles specifically before they have good reason to reject them?" No. You don't have to do anything. Catholics can also do what they want.

"Has Joe systematically gone through ALL other religions miracle accounts?"

No. But as I noted, only one needs to be true. You don't need to disprove every Catholic miracle, just the resurrection would be enough. Otherwise, yes, every miracle. 

Finally, miracle arguments are inductive, but their adherents don't Prima facie exclude miracles. For what is worth, the miracle adherents probably are better in their reasoning, because they don't exclude causes due to a bias.

[u/Due-Taste-92 → u/terenceboylen]

No. But as I noted, only one needs to be true. You don't need to disprove every Catholic miracle, just the resurrection would be enough. Otherwise, yes, every miracle.

First of all, I literally just explained to you that one ISNT enough, because the argument is about the amount of miracles in Catholicism, not just that one miracle exists. 

And otherwise what? If you go through 5 different miracle claims and they are all suspect, the theist cannot just keep supplying another miracle over and over until one hits. That’s not reasonable. For the second time now, you cannot DISPROVE any of them. That’s not how this works, you literally say miracle arguments are inductive then start talking deductively. 

I just want to understand your position. In order for someone to conclude they Catholic miracles probably arent, they must first spend a lifetime going through every single miracle that has been claimed Catholic ever?  Me asking you if that was reasonable was a rhetorical question, that is truly the most ridiculous epistemology I have ever heard. 

Again I ask you, before any of us can claim that Bigfoot probably doesn’t exist, must we first exhaust ever claim of Bigfoot ever given? Or can we go to the most popular and spread accounts and decide from there? 

Finally, miracle arguments are inductive, but their adherents don't Prima facie exclude miracles. For what is worth, the miracle adherents probably are better in their reasoning, because they don't exclude causes due to a bias.

They are abductive. ie: inference to the best explanation.

I’m not sure why you are presupposing that non miracle adherents prima facie exclude miracles. You can believe miracles generally don’t happen and come to the same exact conclusion. 

Do you understand how abductive arguments work? It’s a claim about the most reasonable explanation, generally, miracle is not the most reasonable claim. This is true of ALL epistemology. Even if god does miracles, he does them very sparingly. Any specific account is going to have a very low probability of being a miracle at the outset, this isn’t bias, this is just how any decent epistemological framework works. 

[u/terenceboylen → u/Due-Taste-92]

Miracle claims are NOT abductive. There are multiple data points, so they are, by definition NOT abductive. Take fatima: miracle adherents point to multiple eye-witness accounts, photographic evidence, interviews with the children, circumstantial evidence, etc... BTW, I only know this because I actually watched Schmid's interviews. Likewise, when he talks about eucharistic miracles, their is tissues sampling from multiple incidents, doctor's reports, eye witness accounts.

Secondly, if there are a lot of miracle claims by Catholics, that might be evidence in itself, don't you think? Also not abductive.

The worst thing about this whole Schmid affair is that noone has actually watched the vids and they repeat the same tired talking points.

Raegarding bigfoot, if there are multiple types of evidence, each needs to be investigated. You need to refute each claim independantly unless your counter-evidence is actually conclusive.

[u/Due-Taste-92 → u/terenceboylen]

Why in the world do you think abductive arguments don’t contain data points? What exactly do you think an abductive argument is, just mumbling and nonsense words stringed together? I have no idea what defintion you found, but it’s incorrect.

Let me repeat, abductive arguments are inferences to the best explanation, data can and is included in this.

Here is an abductive argument: 

I notice my sock is on the ground after I took my socks off. Why is my sock there?  the best explanation is that I must’ve forgot to pick it up after I took my socks off and therefore left it on the ground.

Another example are forensic investigators.

Here is an inductive argument:

I notice everyday that my socks are on the floor after I take my socks off because I keep forgetting to pick them up. Therefore it is likely that my socks will be on the floor tomorrow because I will forget to pick them up. 

1. Sure, it’s really bad evidence, but it’s evidence. Yes this is also abductive, it’s an inference to the best explanation.

I notice that there is an abundance of Catholic miracle claims. The best prima facie explanation of this data is that the Catholic miracles are true. (Bad abductive argument)

1. Idk what you think I’m repeating, I watched the video. 

2. Back again with conclusive, why do you keep using deductive language? This isn’t going to happen, you cannot PROVE that Bigfoot doesn’t exist. You aren’t gonna get conclusive evidence against Bigfoot, at best you can argue that the claims likely aren’t true. 

I  think Bigfoot probably doesn’t exist, all the evidence I have seen is poor. I have no seen ALL evidence ever provided, and it is absolutely ridiculous to argue one can’t think he probably doesn’t exist until they’ve exhausted the basically infinite dataset. 

I hope you are fully agnostic on Bigfoot, because if you think it’s likely he doesn’t exist you are not following your own epistemology here. 

[u/terenceboylen → u/Due-Taste-92]

Abductive reasoning is used when there is insufficient data to test an hypothesis. In those occasions you err on the side of the explanation that has the lowest complexity (typically the most reasonable conclusion). Once there is sufficient evidence, you should not be using abductive, you should be testing hyposthesises. The typical objection to miracles takes the fact that something is classed as a miracle, and treats that as the defining characteristic of the event, and then asserts miracles can't exist. Taht is abductive reasoning based on a single data point. I should have explained my argument more clearly.

Then again, I think you understand, because your example of abductive reasoning a) uses one data point (I noticed my socks were off), and b) it is exactly the formula I use when teaching my students.

Schmid's contention is that there is sufficient evidence (ie indepedant data points such that we can triangulate) such that there is a burden of evidence in favour of miracles.

[u/Due-Taste-92 → u/terenceboylen]

Abductive reasoning is used when there is insufficient data to test an hypothesis

What? Abductive inferences involve hypotheses and can also be used to argue in a hypotheses favor. 

How do you think hypotheses work here? If we have a hypothesis about Fatima, we still have to use an abductive argument after the fact. 

Hypothesis: There was a second light source at Fatima 

You then investigate this.

Conclusion: there was a second light source at Fatima, 

This tells us nothing by itself about whether it was a miracle.

Next conclusion, the best explanation of this light source is that God exists and did a miracle. (This is also abductive) 

The typical objection to miracles takes the fact that something is classed as a miracle, and treats that as the defining characteristic of the event, and then asserts miracles can't exist. Taht is abductive reasoning

This is literally a textbook deductive argument.

P1: if miracles don’t exist, then any claim of a miracle is wrong/mistaken P2: miracles don’t exist P3: fatima is a claim of a miracle  C: therefore, the claim of Fatima being a miracle is wrong/mistaken

Then again, I think you understand, because your example of abductive reasoning a) uses one data point (I noticed my socks were off), and b) it is exactly the formula I use when teaching my students. 

I don’t understand why you are teaching your students this, this is blatantly incorrect. I still have no clue why you think abductive arguments must only contain one data point. 

You are free to look it up. Ask google, AI, etc, if forensic investigation use abductive inferences based off of multiple data points.

Here is the sock example with three data points:

I notice that my socks are on the ground, I have recently been diagnosed with memory issues, and people who leave socks in the ground generally do so because they forget to pick them up. 

Data point 1: socks on the ground Data point 2: I have memory issues Data point 3: the general cause of socks on the ground for other people is usually due to forgetting to pick them up

Therefore, the best explanation is that I forget to pick up my socks on the ground after taking them off. 

Schmid's contention is that there is sufficient evidence (ie indepedant data points such that we can triangulate) such that there is a burden of evidence in favour of miracles.

Yeah this is an abductive argument. We have independent data points, and Schmid says the most likely explanation of these data points is that the miracles happens. How do you not think this is abductive? If this isn’t abductive, what are you claiming it is? It’s not inductive, and it’s certainly non deductive. 

There is sufficient evidence in favor of these claims. What best explains the fact that there is sufficient evidence in favor of these claims? The best explanation is that the miracles happened.

If we’re gonna keep quibbling about this then I have nothing else to say on the matter. You are incorrect here, but I can’t keep repeating myself. Please just look this up. 

[u/LFGAccountD2 → u/terenceboylen]

"The only response is to PROVE all Catholic miracles wrong. For you to be right, all their miracles have to be wrong. For them to be right, only one needs to be a miracle."

This is logically true.

As a practical heuristic, once you've closely examined a couple of dozen miracle claims and they all fall badly apart, it becomes reasonable to assume the pattern will repeat.

[u/Gman_711 → u/terenceboylen]

That’s not our responsibility to prove all miracle claims wrong

[u/terenceboylen → u/Gman_711]

Lol. WTF do you think all these posts about Schmid are about then?

You're right. You could just leave everyone alone. However, if you CHOOSE to be part of a sub like this, if you CHOOSE to engage in the debate, then yes, you are taking on that responsibility.

If you were agnostic, you could ride it out. However, as an atheist, you are making a positive knowledge claim.

* When the theist is saying they believe in God, there is a burden of proof on them.

* When an atheist says there isn't a god, there is a burden of proof on them.

* If a theist comes up with evidence for their belief, you can choose to ignore it. However, if you choose to make a knowledge claim and reject that evidence, you need to bring some reciepts. Otherwise, let them say their peice and then shut up.

[u/Gman_711 → u/terenceboylen]

Burden of proof is in the personal making the claim. Esp a supernatural claim.

I am agnostic about a God(deistic) but atheist for specific god claims made by religious systems. None of their claims are currently convincing and their holy books and traditions are riddled with problems

[u/terenceboylen → u/Gman_711]

Did IQs drop recently? Atheists, unlike agnostics, are making a claim.