Jessie Patterson
Honors
Dr. Schuler
As part of the book Galileo, Darwin, and Hawking, Phil Dowe tackles the concept of miracles. More specifically, he presents the question of whether or not miracles can provide a rational basis for believing in God and where science's role is in proving or disproving them. For "even if we think of science and religion as separate domains, each legitimate, miracles seem to force a point of contact between the two" (82). Though his arguments do prove interaction points between the two topics, Dowe often just leads the reader right back to the starting point. Since miracles don't actually prove anything this entire explanation is really just a waste time if one's looking for answers.
Before Dowe can begin proving or disproving miracles, he must first define exactly what a miracle is. Though he never states it very clearly, he tends to define a miracle as a violation of a law of nature in that they "challenge the naturalistic idea that scientific domain of explanation is all-embracing" (82). His definition is very fruitful for interactions between science and religion though. By his wording, he implies that science isn't "all-knowing" and that in some cases, religion may reign supreme. At one point he even states that a miracle is a violation of nature by a Deity. Once he defines a 'miracle' he begins his argument against the rational belief of miracles. For most of his discussion of arguments, Dowe follows the analysis done by the Scottish philosopher David Hume. The basis of this argument is his two rules: That one can never rationally believe on the basis of testimony that a miracle has occurred and that there are three explanations for every miracle.
For the first rule, one must proportion their belief to their evidence. The problem with this, Dowe argues, is that it leads you nowhere. If there is full proof of the law of nature and of the miracle, one is left agnostic with no conclusion either way on the existence of God. On the other hand, if there is little proof of the miracle and full proof of the law of nature, one must apportion their belief. By apportioning belief though, God can never be proved nor disproved. This obviously shows a weakness in the argument. By 2/3 of the routes of following this rule it is very tough for one to prove their stance. By the other, the reader is left right where they started.
In the second rule, Hume says that there are three possibilities for every argument; that it was an act of God, that there is a natural explanation that is unknown at this time and that there simply is no explanation. Clearly, the last explanation is the weakest of the three. The first two, while they are strong arguments are very hard to prove or even disprove. Dowe argues you must use inference to the best explanation rather than deriving your explanation from all the data. Though structurally this argument seems weak, it is very helpful again in finding the interaction between science and religion. For now, he is not only trying to prove miracles but trying to show their correlation to God himself.
Many of Dowe's points are very strong in their basic form and he brings up many very good points of interaction between science and religion. His strongest argument is the idea of proportioning one's belief based on the evidence given. For this he gives the equation P (E|H1) >>P (E|H2) where H1 and H2 are the miracle and the law of nature, E is the evidence and P is the probability of the event. This is a very rational point in that it is fair to both sides and lets them defend for themselves without and bias. Because of this, it brings a very strong interaction between science and religion. The equation allows the reader to fairly look at both the religion and science sides of the miracle and lets the stronger case reign in that specific miracle. It allows interaction between the two and admits that while religion may be stronger for one miracle, science may be stronger for another. In the case that science reigns supreme, Dowe suggests that the part of the Bible that was used as proof of the miracle should now be read metaphorically instead of literally.
All of Dowe's arguments are very helpful in finding the harmony between science and religion. They give each topic its own space and ability for prove itself. At the same time though, they give little proof for explaining these points. His arguments essentially lead the reader nowhere. Even if the reader were to come to a conclusion based on Dowe's thinking, miracles don't prove anything. For miracles don't prove anything about faith, they mere create it.
