What are the Odds?
The more often a thing has been known to happen, the more probable it is that it should happen again; and the less often the less probable. Now the regularity of Nature’s course, says Hume, is supported by something better than the majority vote of past experiences: it is supported by their unanimous vote, or, as Hume says, by “firm and unalterable experience”. There is, in fact, “uniform experience” against Miracle; otherwise, says Hume, it would not be a Miracle. A miracle is therefore the most improbable of all events. It is always more probable that the witnesses were lying or mistaken than that a miracle occurred.13
CS Lewis
Let us say that you are not very good at math, and you want to determine what the odds are for a coin coming up heads. Since the calculations are a bit beyond you, you decide to just brute force it. You decide to use trial and error. So you take a coin, flip it, see that it came down heads, and write that down.
Then you come back a couple of minutes later, and it is still ‘heads’, so you mark down ‘heads’ again. You come back a couple of minutes later, it is still heads, so you mark down ‘heads’ again. Then you come back…
Finally your friend, having watched you this whole time, asks you what you are doing?
“I’m writing down how often the coin is ‘heads’ and how many times it is ‘tails’,” you reply.
“But you only flipped it once!” he responds.
But this little incident has always lingered in my mind as a sort of parable. Most modern histories of mankind begin with the word evolution, and with a{21} rather wordy exposition of evolution, for much the same reason that operated in this case. There is something slow and soothing and gradual about the word and even about the idea. As a matter of fact, it is not, touching these primary things, a very practical word or a very profitable idea. Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else. It is really far more logical to start by saying ‘In the beginning God created heaven and earth’ even if you only mean ‘In the beginning some unthinkable power began some unthinkable process.’ For God is by its nature a name of mystery, and nobody ever supposed that man could imagine how a world was created any more than he could create one. But evolution really is mistaken for explanation. It has the fatal quality of leaving on many minds the impression that they do understand it and everything else; just as many of them live under a sort of illusion that they have read the Origin of Species.
But this notion of something smooth and slow, like the ascent of a slope, is a great part of the illusion. It is an illogicality as well as an illusion; for slowness has really nothing to do with the question. An event is not any more intrinsically intelligible or unintelligible because of the pace at which it moves. For a man who does not believe in a miracle, a slow miracle would be just as incredible as a swift one. The Greek witch may have turned sailors to swine with a stroke of the wand. But to see a naval gentleman of our acquaintance looking a little more like a pig every day, till he ended with four trotters and a curly tail, would not be any more soothing. It might be rather more creepy and uncanny. The medieval wizard may have flown through the air from the top of a tower; but to see an old gentleman walking through the air, in a leisurely and lounging manner, would still seem to call for some explanation.{22} Yet there runs through all the rationalistic treatment of history this curious and confused idea that difficulty is avoided, or even mystery eliminated, by dwelling on mere delay or on something dilatory in the processes of things. There will be something to be said upon particular examples elsewhere; the question here is the false atmosphere of facility and ease given by the mere suggestion of going slow; the sort of comfort that might be given to a nervous old woman travelling for the first time in a motor-car.
Miracles
“Oh,” you say, feeling like a fool. The question you were trying to answer was, ‘how many times will it come up heads (or tails) when you flip it?! Of course, you have to flip it each time!!”
There is a popular fallacy held by some awfully bright people who speak about the odds of a miracle occurring. They speak of a miracle as a very unlikely event, and thus, when it comes time to look at some happenstance, they reason, “I can’t tell if this was a miracle or not, but, since miracles happen only rarely, then the odds are that this was not a miracle.”
The reason this is a fallacy is because there is information needed for the analysis that is ignored by the fallacy:
1) What is the total number of miracles that have occurred in the past?
2) Under what circumstances have they occurred?
3) Is the current circumstance one under which you would expect to see a miracle?
Circumstance
Sometimes the credibility of the miracles is in inverse ratio to the credibility of the religion. Thus, miracles are (in late documents I believe) recorded of the Buddha. But what could be more absurd than that he who came to teach us nature is an illusion from which we must escape should occupy himself in producing effects on the Natural level—which he who comes to wake us from a nightmare should add to the nightmare. The more we respect his teachings the less we could accept his miracles.
CS Lewis
Let’s start with the ‘circumstance’. Under what circumstance can we expect to see a miracle? Well, let’s talk about some miracles that everyone over the age of thirty or so has seen. Let’s talk about… running into paintings.
There once was a TV show called ‘Road Runner’. And on that show, miracles frequently occurred. Like, pretty much every show. One of the more popular of these miracles was ‘running into a painting’. One of the characters would paint a picture of a road and hang it up against a cliff. The other character would then come racing along and run right into the painting. The other character would come out of hiding, stare in shock, then run at the painting, run through the painting, and fall to his… well, not his death but a great deal of pain.
So the miracle was ‘running into a painting’. And the circumstances… well, they involved a painting… no, let’s start with… it involved a TV show (specifically a cartoon)… the coyote making a painting… and the road runner running into the painting. Given those circumstances, you had a miracle 100% of the time. However if it wasn’t TV show, if it wasn’t the coyote painting the painting… and it wasn’t the road runner running into it… then the number is about zero. (I think there are a few fantasy books where it has happened).
Current Circumstance
So whenever anyone asks of something ‘is this a miracle?’ and wishes to use ‘past miracles’ as a guide, then one analysis that would have to be done would be ‘When have miracles occurred in the past?’.
-CS Lewis
Begging the Question
And that is where this analysis really breaks down because the answer is: never. That is to say that the people doing this analysis don’t believe that any miracles have ever occurred. Not even the miracle on 34th Street. Because of this belief (not any kind of study) they concluded that miracles have a zero per cent chance of happening.
With a zero per cent chance of happening, then, they easily conclude that any particular happenstance is not a miracle. But that is not a ‘conclusion’, it is merely moving your opening assumption to the end of the argument. You assume that miracles are not possible, so you assume they have not happened, so you assume they will not happen. Cute.
Useless
This way of calculating the possibility of miracles is useless. It is missing all three of the foundations for the kind of analysis that it claims to do. It has no way of determining how many miracles have occurred in the past. It doesn’t even pretend to have a theory. And having no analysis of miracles in the past, it has no way of determining the circumstances under which miracles occurred. Having no way of determining the circumstances, they then have no way of determining if the current happenstance meets those circumstances.
So on every level this analysis fails. It doesn’t even get off the ground. But for the people that use it, this doesn’t matter. Because all they are doing is trying to sound good, to sound impressive.
Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!
Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.
If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!
Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,
Von
Links
Creation Discussion-ish
I have written several posts about Creation and Evolution.
and I were hoping for it to evolve into a letter exchange, but so far he has only commented.
Natural Selection and Math: Evolution doesn’t add up.
Warp Drives and Snake Oil Salesmen: Assuming its true
Examining Adam: Suppose we took Adam for his checkup
I Understand: Where is the boundary of science?
Attacking Evolution #3a: Minimum Necessary Systems
Attacking Evolution #2A: The Results of Evolutionary Thought
First Things: What was the first life like?
Ground Rules: How to argue about evolution
Reproductive Advantage: Does Sodomy confer a reproductive advantage?
On Colour, Colour Vision, and Breastfeeding
Creative Discontinuity
The Logic of Miracles
Pizza Discussion
The “Pizza Discussion” is a letter exchange with
. In it we discuss issues of the importance of religion, God, and morality… comparing them to the importance of Pizza and Sushi. It started when he posted a post entitled‘Religion’and specifically comes from this line: “Arguing over religion strikes me as the same as arguing over whether sushi or pizza is better.”
has also contributed.