The story of Knock in the light of Hume's case against believability of miracles
On the night of the 21st of August 1879 the Virgin Mary flanked by St Joseph and
a bishop thought to be St John the Evangelist and an altar with a lamb and cross
on it allegedly appeared on the gable wall of the Parish Church for a few hours.
Fifteen people witnessed the vision including a child of five (page 60, The
Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary) and stood watching it for two hours
allegedly in torrential rain.
Religion is being completely irrational in saying, "Yes miracles are improbable.
But if the evidence is good enough for them then we can believe they happened.
Improbable things do happen. We merely say that it is probable but not proven that
Mary was at Knock." It is rational to pay no attention to evidence relating to a
miracle being authentic if there is evidence that the event is not a true
miracle. The stronger the case for an event's non-supernaturality, the less
right you have to assume or believe that it is supernatural even if there is
evidence for it being miraculous or paranormal.
David Hume said that however honest a witness to a miracle seems, it is more
likely for the witness to be lying than for the witness to be telling the truth.
Christianity rejects this argument. It says it could be likely for the witness
to be telling the truth. It says it is unfair to argue that a person is to be
doubted just because they said they experienced a miracle. Thus believing them
is an act of Christian love. But even Christians say, "If an unreliable person
testifies to a miracle we don't have to believe. We should not." To that we can
say, "But it is unfair to argue that they must be given no credibility just
because they spoke of a miracle?" The only sensible approach then is to argue,
"We will not consider miracle claims. Period." It is the only way to avoid opening
the floodgates.
We are not doing that to be unfair but to be fair. Knock might seem okay but
when you think of what miracles imply it is clear that Knock is toxic and
superstitious.
Judith Campbell left her dying mother to go and see the vision. The old woman
tried to venture out of the house alone and was found dying at the door. By even
Catholic standards, Judy Campbell should not be believed when she testified to
the apparition.
Evidence gives us reasonable grounds for accepting something as probably true.
Evidence itself however is based on assumptions. If you are calculating your
friend's tax you assume that the paperwork he gives you is real though you know
it might not be. You assume that it is human factors to blame if it is faked. You do
not assume some being from another dimension faked it. That is all an unbeliever
in miracles is doing. He is assuming what everybody else assumes. Some believers
in miracles say they assume that sometimes the supernatural is at work. Assuming
such a thing would be irrational. It would be arbitrary for you assume one
miracle is true and the other is false. So most believers prefer to deny that
they assume - they say they only believe something is miraculous when there is
evidence that it is. But evidence requires that you assume there is no
supernatural...
The accusation that unbelievers are too narrow-minded to believe is totally
unfair ...
It's the believers who are narrow and unfair...and implicitly dangerous. They
could have the world going mad believing all kinds of stupid and irresponsible
rubbish.