A brief conversation on the miraculous

In class, we’ve been talking about NDEs. Perhaps one of the most fundamental questions that can be asked about them is this: “Are NDEs even possible?” Is there something after we die? Something miraculous, even? Is it ever reasonable to believe in the miraculous? David Hume would say almost never, but what did he know anyways?

Perhaps a deeper question is, what do we base plausibility off of? All of the beliefs we hold depend on some prior beliefs, and no matter how well thought-out our beliefs are, they all ultimately rest on assumptions. Some assumptions might be more reasonable than others, but they are assumptions nevertheless. This is not necessarily good or bad, it just is, but it is crucial that we at least recognize this.

Our underlying assumptions and foundational beliefs are what make up our background beliefs, which influence most of what we think about. So how does this relate to the miraculous? Our background beliefs are what guide us when we are deciding whether something is plausible or not, even before testimony is given. In the case of David Hume, his background beliefs about reality lead him to discount divine intervention as a legitimate reason for events, even before hearing any particular story. 

To illustrate this matter further, let’s consider two fictitious stories.

I am sitting in Philosophy & Christianity with Rajah and Sarah. For some reason or other, I was on time and Randy is running a few minutes late. He arrives, and informs us that it is snowing outside. I am inclined to believe this, because it is January and the forecast predicted snow. I believe Randy, even though it was not snowing when I walked to class. The fact that it is snowing is probable even without Randy’s account, and my background beliefs about January in Iowa are enough to overcome the fact that I did not witness the alleged event.

In church, a man tells of a time when he was driving through the Mojave. He says he ran out of gas in the middle of the desert, but he prayed that God would keep his car running without gas. The man says God answered his prayer, and he drove for 30 miles with no gas in his tank. Now, two major background beliefs are coming into play here. First there is my background belief about how engines work. They don’t run without gas, plain and simple. However, the man also made a claim about God. What I think about the possibility, frequency and type of intervention God makes in the world will ultimately affect whether I deem the account to be true or false, and there are many possibilities here. The man could be telling the truth, lying, insane, self-deceiving or honestly mistaken, but my background beliefs are what determine the plausibility of the account before testimony is given.

In conclusion, when thinking about the miraculous, it is important to consider background beliefs. They are unavoidable and intimately connected to how much plausibility is given to miracle claims. Some may completely rule out the possibility for the miraculous, while others might irrationally offer divine intervention as a reason for easily explicable scenarios.