The Miracle Myth

July 11, 2016
Shapiro (Embodied Cognition), a philosophy professor at University of Wisconsin-Madison, argues that there are not sufficient reasons for anyone to believe in miracles. Defining miracles as extremely improbable events with a supernatural cause, he lays out two trajectories of careful logic to refute faith in them. First, he shows briefly that seeing supernatural causes requires assumptions that cannot rule out other nondivine interventions. Second, the improbable nature of miracles heightens the requirements for proof. He builds these arguments through stories of improbable events that he claims most people view as absurd (a talking frog in India, alien abductions, and the revelation of the Book of Mormon) before applying the same scrutiny to Jesus’s resurrection. Shapiro admits that miracles might have occurred, but he seems convinced that his work will cause even the firmest believers to doubt and reorganize their lives along more rational lines. His self-satisfaction might alienate some readers, but the explanations for his claims (especially on the nature of historical proof) are clear and readable. For those opposed to miracles, he offers a logically consistent line of argument. For believers, his reliance on purely logical approaches is unlikely to shake conviction.

October 1, 2016

Shapiro's (philosophy, Univ. Wisconsin-Madison; The Mind Incarnate) aim here is quite precise. It is not to show that miracles never happened, or that we do not know that they ever occurred, but that we are not justified in believing there has ever been a miracle. He begins by defining miracles (a highly improbable event caused by supernatural agency) and justification (something that increases the probability that a belief is true) and then proceeds to argue that the existence of highly improbable occasions cannot be used to point to any supernatural agency because any natural explanation is at least as good. Shapiro follows this with an argument reminiscent of David Hume's, that the evidence for anything that might count as a miracle must be all but overwhelming in order to justify its assent. Finally, the author makes the case that the evidence for miracles (in particular the Resurrection of Jesus) is not only not overwhelming but dubious. Because he does not handle the New Testament material as carefully as he might, Shapiro needlessly overstates this final point. VERDICT Shapiro makes a clear argument, which allows us--believers or not--to examine critically our own positions.--James Wetherbee, Wingate Univ. Libs., NC

Copyright 2016 Library Journal, LLC Used with permission.