What the Vatican Congratulation to Obama Means

Sources: Catholic Culture : Latest Headlines : Vatican congratulates Obama on Nobel Peace Prize; http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=zenit&id=27125

I figured I'd post this preemptively as I know some people will try to spin this as "Vatican loves Obama… US bishops out of touch" or else as an accusation that the Pope "betrayed" faithful Catholics.

This is not a carte blanche endorsement of the Obama administration.  This is an acknowledgement of one area where the Obama administration and the teaching of the Catholic Church coincides (peace and the opposition to war).

It makes sense in context when one reads the Pope's statement on war, from yesterday:

POPE TO YOUNG PEOPLE: NEVER YIELD TO TEMPTATION OF WAR

VATICAN CITY, 9 OCT 2009 (VIS) - Yesterday evening in the Auditorium on Rome's Via della Conciliazione Benedict XVI attended a concert entitled "Young people against war (1939-2009)", played by the "InterRegionales Jugendsinfonie Orchester" conducted by Jochem Hochstenbach. The programme included compositions by Gustav Mahler and Felix Mendelsshon-Bartholdy and texts by Johan Wolfgang Goethe, Heinrich Heine, Paul Celan and Berthold Brecht, as well as two poems by children imprisoned in the Theresienstadt concentration camp, read by Michelle Breedt and Klaus Maria Brandauer.

The concert, called to commemorate the seventieth anniversary of the outbreak of World War II, was organised by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, the Commission for Religious Relations with Judaism, the German embassy to the Holy See and the European "KulturForum" of Mainau.

At the end of the concert the Holy Father made some brief remarks, expressing his joy at having been able participate in this initiative which, he said, "using the universal language of music, ... seeks to encourage young people to build the future of the world together, drawing inspiration from the values of peace and the brotherhood of man".

"This evening the tragedy of World War II returns to our memory, a terrible page of history steeped in violence and inhumanity which caused the death of millions of people, leaving the winners divided and Europe to be rebuilt. The war, instigated by National Socialism, affected many innocent peoples in Europe and on other continents, while with the drama of the Shoah it particularly affected the Jewish people, who were victims of a planned extermination. Yet calls for reason and peace were not lacking from many sides. Here in Rome, the heartfelt cry of my venerated predecessor Pius XII rang out. In his radio message of 24 August 1939 - on the very eve of the outbreak of war - he decisively proclaimed: 'nothing is lost with peace. Everything may be lost with war'. ... May the recollection of those sad events be a warning, especially to the new generations, never to yield to the temptation of war".

Pope Benedict then went on to mention the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, "an eloquent symbol of the end of the totalitarian Communist regimes of Eastern Europe", he said. "Europe and the entire world thirst for freedom and peace. Together we must build true civilisation, not founded on force but on the 'fruit of our victory over ourselves, over the powers of injustice, selfishness and hatred which can even go so far as to disfigure man'".

"The ecumenical movement", he concluded, "can help to build [this civilisation], working together with the Jews and with all believers. May God bless us and grant humankind the gift of peace".

BXVI-CONCERT/WORLD WAR II/...

War may at times be unavoidable when another party seeks aggression and we have no choice but to fight or suffer a great injustice, but war should never be sought out.  If a just and peaceful path can be found which avoids war, it is the way Christians are called to follow.

So for those out there seeking to claim "abortion isn't as important as other issues," for those who want to accuse the Pope of "betraying the Church," you speak falsely.  We have a great body of work of the Church, including that of the current Pope which stands firmly for the right to life.

It merely means, as I said above that the reason Obama was awarded the peace prize was an issue which is compatible with Church teaching. 

No more, no less.

What the Vatican Congratulation to Obama Means

Sources: Catholic Culture : Latest Headlines : Vatican congratulates Obama on Nobel Peace Prize; http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=zenit&id=27125

I figured I'd post this preemptively as I know some people will try to spin this as "Vatican loves Obama… US bishops out of touch" or else as an accusation that the Pope "betrayed" faithful Catholics.

This is not a carte blanche endorsement of the Obama administration.  This is an acknowledgement of one area where the Obama administration and the teaching of the Catholic Church coincides (peace and the opposition to war).

It makes sense in context when one reads the Pope's statement on war, from yesterday:

POPE TO YOUNG PEOPLE: NEVER YIELD TO TEMPTATION OF WAR

VATICAN CITY, 9 OCT 2009 (VIS) - Yesterday evening in the Auditorium on Rome's Via della Conciliazione Benedict XVI attended a concert entitled "Young people against war (1939-2009)", played by the "InterRegionales Jugendsinfonie Orchester" conducted by Jochem Hochstenbach. The programme included compositions by Gustav Mahler and Felix Mendelsshon-Bartholdy and texts by Johan Wolfgang Goethe, Heinrich Heine, Paul Celan and Berthold Brecht, as well as two poems by children imprisoned in the Theresienstadt concentration camp, read by Michelle Breedt and Klaus Maria Brandauer.

The concert, called to commemorate the seventieth anniversary of the outbreak of World War II, was organised by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, the Commission for Religious Relations with Judaism, the German embassy to the Holy See and the European "KulturForum" of Mainau.

At the end of the concert the Holy Father made some brief remarks, expressing his joy at having been able participate in this initiative which, he said, "using the universal language of music, ... seeks to encourage young people to build the future of the world together, drawing inspiration from the values of peace and the brotherhood of man".

"This evening the tragedy of World War II returns to our memory, a terrible page of history steeped in violence and inhumanity which caused the death of millions of people, leaving the winners divided and Europe to be rebuilt. The war, instigated by National Socialism, affected many innocent peoples in Europe and on other continents, while with the drama of the Shoah it particularly affected the Jewish people, who were victims of a planned extermination. Yet calls for reason and peace were not lacking from many sides. Here in Rome, the heartfelt cry of my venerated predecessor Pius XII rang out. In his radio message of 24 August 1939 - on the very eve of the outbreak of war - he decisively proclaimed: 'nothing is lost with peace. Everything may be lost with war'. ... May the recollection of those sad events be a warning, especially to the new generations, never to yield to the temptation of war".

Pope Benedict then went on to mention the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, "an eloquent symbol of the end of the totalitarian Communist regimes of Eastern Europe", he said. "Europe and the entire world thirst for freedom and peace. Together we must build true civilisation, not founded on force but on the 'fruit of our victory over ourselves, over the powers of injustice, selfishness and hatred which can even go so far as to disfigure man'".

"The ecumenical movement", he concluded, "can help to build [this civilisation], working together with the Jews and with all believers. May God bless us and grant humankind the gift of peace".

BXVI-CONCERT/WORLD WAR II/...

War may at times be unavoidable when another party seeks aggression and we have no choice but to fight or suffer a great injustice, but war should never be sought out.  If a just and peaceful path can be found which avoids war, it is the way Christians are called to follow.

So for those out there seeking to claim "abortion isn't as important as other issues," for those who want to accuse the Pope of "betraying the Church," you speak falsely.  We have a great body of work of the Church, including that of the current Pope which stands firmly for the right to life.

It merely means, as I said above that the reason Obama was awarded the peace prize was an issue which is compatible with Church teaching. 

No more, no less.

Reflections on the Bishops' Letter to Congress

Source: http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/2009-10-08-healthcare-letter-congress.pdf 

The USCCB has been speaking out on the issues of the right to life, and why the current health care proposals are unacceptable.  The text of the letter is as follows:

Dear Member of Congress:

On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), we are writing to express our disappointment that progress has not been made on the three priority criteria for health care reform that we have conveyed previously to Congress. In fact, the Senate Finance Committee rejected a conscience rights amendment accepted earlier by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. If final legislation does not meet our principles, we will have no choice but to oppose the bill. We remain committed to working with the Administration, Congressional leadership, and our allies to produce final health reform legislation that will reflect our principles.

We continue to urge you to

1. Exclude mandated coverage for abortion, and incorporate longstanding policies against abortion funding and in favor of conscience rights. No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion. It is essential that the legislation clearly apply to this new program longstanding and widely supported federal restrictions on abortion funding and mandates, and protections for rights of conscience. No current bill meets this test.

2. Adopt measures that protect and improve people’s health care. Reform should make quality health care affordable and accessible to everyone, particularly those who are vulnerable and those who live at or near the poverty level.

3. Include effective measures to safeguard the health of immigrants, their children and all of society. Ensure that legal immigrants and their family members have comprehensive, affordable, and timely access to health care coverage. Maintain an adequate safety net for those who remain uncovered.

We sincerely hope that the legislation will not fall short of our criteria. However, we remain apprehensive when amendments protecting freedom of conscience and ensuring no taxpayer money for abortion are defeated in committee votes. If acceptable language in these areas cannot be found, we will have to oppose the health care bill vigorously. Catholic moral tradition teaches that health care is a basic human right, essential to protecting human life and dignity. Much-needed reform of our health care system must be pursued in ways that serve the life and dignity of all, never in ways that undermine or violate these fundamental values. We will work tirelessly to remedy these central problems and help pass real reform that clearly protects the life, dignity and health of all.

 

Bishop William F. Murphy Diocese of Rockville Centre Chairman

Committee on Domestic Justice & Human Development

Cardinal Justin Rigali Archdiocese of Philadelphia Chairman

Committee on Pro-Life Activities

Bishop John Wester Diocese of Salt Lake City Chairman

Committee on Migration

Some will doubtlessly accuse these bishops as "meddling" in politics.  However this is not the case.  When a political process or policy does not run afoul of the obligation of Christians, generally they will not speak out.

However, when a law is contrary to the teaching of the Church… particularly if it compels the Christian to act in a way contrary to the faith, it must be opposed.

The common counter-claim is that Christians are "pushing their beliefs on others."  However, if one thinks it through, it is not a valid claim to make.  Consider the civil rights movement of the 1960s.  Consider the opposition to Nazism and World War II.  Were these things standing up against injustices or were they "pushing beliefs on others?"

The "pushing beliefs" argument is essentially made by the individual who disagrees with the stance taken.  The irony is that this individual, in seeking to silence the opposition is in fact pushing their own beliefs on others.

The bishops of the Catholic Church indeed are reminding the members of congress that as individuals and as representatives of a nation they stand before God, and that their searching for reformed health care (which is not an intrinsic wrong) must have this understanding in mind.

The unbeliever or the non-Christian may disagree with the Christian view of human rights or of morality, but the question is on what basis they promote their own view.  If they would insist on imposing their view on us [no conscience protections on abortion etc.] the question must be asked "On what basis do you impose this on us?"

Unless the question is answered satisfactorily, we cannot give this mentality free reign.  And, dare I say it, if we Christians know we possess the truth, we are not to hide our light under a bushel but are to share it with the world

Reflections on the Bishops' Letter to Congress

Source: http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/2009-10-08-healthcare-letter-congress.pdf 

The USCCB has been speaking out on the issues of the right to life, and why the current health care proposals are unacceptable.  The text of the letter is as follows:

Dear Member of Congress:

On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), we are writing to express our disappointment that progress has not been made on the three priority criteria for health care reform that we have conveyed previously to Congress. In fact, the Senate Finance Committee rejected a conscience rights amendment accepted earlier by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. If final legislation does not meet our principles, we will have no choice but to oppose the bill. We remain committed to working with the Administration, Congressional leadership, and our allies to produce final health reform legislation that will reflect our principles.

We continue to urge you to

1. Exclude mandated coverage for abortion, and incorporate longstanding policies against abortion funding and in favor of conscience rights. No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion. It is essential that the legislation clearly apply to this new program longstanding and widely supported federal restrictions on abortion funding and mandates, and protections for rights of conscience. No current bill meets this test.

2. Adopt measures that protect and improve people’s health care. Reform should make quality health care affordable and accessible to everyone, particularly those who are vulnerable and those who live at or near the poverty level.

3. Include effective measures to safeguard the health of immigrants, their children and all of society. Ensure that legal immigrants and their family members have comprehensive, affordable, and timely access to health care coverage. Maintain an adequate safety net for those who remain uncovered.

We sincerely hope that the legislation will not fall short of our criteria. However, we remain apprehensive when amendments protecting freedom of conscience and ensuring no taxpayer money for abortion are defeated in committee votes. If acceptable language in these areas cannot be found, we will have to oppose the health care bill vigorously. Catholic moral tradition teaches that health care is a basic human right, essential to protecting human life and dignity. Much-needed reform of our health care system must be pursued in ways that serve the life and dignity of all, never in ways that undermine or violate these fundamental values. We will work tirelessly to remedy these central problems and help pass real reform that clearly protects the life, dignity and health of all.

 

Bishop William F. Murphy Diocese of Rockville Centre Chairman

Committee on Domestic Justice & Human Development

Cardinal Justin Rigali Archdiocese of Philadelphia Chairman

Committee on Pro-Life Activities

Bishop John Wester Diocese of Salt Lake City Chairman

Committee on Migration

Some will doubtlessly accuse these bishops as "meddling" in politics.  However this is not the case.  When a political process or policy does not run afoul of the obligation of Christians, generally they will not speak out.

However, when a law is contrary to the teaching of the Church… particularly if it compels the Christian to act in a way contrary to the faith, it must be opposed.

The common counter-claim is that Christians are "pushing their beliefs on others."  However, if one thinks it through, it is not a valid claim to make.  Consider the civil rights movement of the 1960s.  Consider the opposition to Nazism and World War II.  Were these things standing up against injustices or were they "pushing beliefs on others?"

The "pushing beliefs" argument is essentially made by the individual who disagrees with the stance taken.  The irony is that this individual, in seeking to silence the opposition is in fact pushing their own beliefs on others.

The bishops of the Catholic Church indeed are reminding the members of congress that as individuals and as representatives of a nation they stand before God, and that their searching for reformed health care (which is not an intrinsic wrong) must have this understanding in mind.

The unbeliever or the non-Christian may disagree with the Christian view of human rights or of morality, but the question is on what basis they promote their own view.  If they would insist on imposing their view on us [no conscience protections on abortion etc.] the question must be asked "On what basis do you impose this on us?"

Unless the question is answered satisfactorily, we cannot give this mentality free reign.  And, dare I say it, if we Christians know we possess the truth, we are not to hide our light under a bushel but are to share it with the world

On So-Called False Christians, False Scotsmen and Judging Others

Some of the evangelical blogs I have been receiving notifications of have been speaking on a common theme lately.  This theme is the concept of who is a true Christian and who is a false Christian, and whether or not it is right to treat true Christians differently from false Christians.

I am inclined to think such a view, while perhaps well meaning, is contrary to the view of Christ.

For openers, we could look at Matthew 7:

^1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. ^2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. ^3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? ^4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? ^5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

Judging whether one is a true Christian or not is a matter of judging of the person, not of the act.  It presumes to judge whether another has accepted Christ or not and fails to consider that the other person may be a Christian who fails at their commitment.

It also fails to consider whether the individual doing the judging could also be judged by another as not measuring up to his standards.

A person is a Christian by the virtue of Baptism (either explicit or through the Baptism of desire or of blood) [see 1 Pet 3:21-22].  A person will be a faithful or unfaithful Christian based on how they carry out their following of the faith.

It is unfortunate that in the Evangelical traditions, we have the notions of "accept the Lord as your personal salvation and you will be saved" because it leads to the fallacy of the No True Scotsman.  I've spoken on it before, but I'll recap briefly for those who haven't heard of it:

MacIntosh: No Scotsman puts Brown Sugar on his porridge

MacIver: What about Angus over there.  He puts brown sugar on his porridge

MacIntosh: He doesn't count.  No true Scotsman puts brown sugar on his porridge.

Under this reasoning, no counter-example by MacIver will be accepted, because the counter-example will be rejected as not being a "true" Scotsman.  However, MacIntosh's claim is based on his own definition, and makes him the judge and jury over who is a Scotsman.

Likewise the individual who seeks to decide who is or is not a true Christian is passing judgment over the other person's sincerity.

The problem is this can be cut any number of ways.  "Him?  He's a Papist!  He can't be a Christian!"  "Her?  She's got a drinking problem!  She can't be a Christian!"

God will judge the Christian who fails to live up to their calling of course.  But that does not mean we can pass this judgment on them as to whether or not they are seeking to follow Christ.  Christians can indeed be hypocritical (the common atheistic charge is that all of us Christians are hypocritical).  They can backslide.  However, this does not unmake their baptism.  It means they failed to live up to it, and if they do not repent they will be judged.

The second issue, of how we should treat others who are not "true Christians," must be measured before the requirement Jesus made of us in Matthew 5:

^43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ ^44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, ^45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. ^46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? ^47 And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? ^48 You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

In other words, if we treat "true" Christians differently from "false" Christians, we disobey Christ.

Now, we can indeed excommunicate a public sinner from the communion of believers, as St. Paul described in 1 Cor. 5, but this is not intended to be a punishment of condemnation, but an ostracism to return the wayward Christian to his senses.

The difference between how we should treat Christians living according to their faith and the Christian fallen is that the former we should pray that they may be sustained, while the latter we should pray for them to return to the path they fell away from, even if we must rebuke them.

Rebuking may be necessary of course.  We must always reject sin and refuse to accept it in others with indifference.  However, we should not deem a person damned, or not a Christian because he stumbled on the path.

And we should remember that the measure we use against others will be the measure used against us by Christ.

So before determining that a person is a "false Christian," we need to ask ourselves on what basis we make this claim, and on which authority we have the right to make it.

We should remember the parable of Christ in Luke 18:

^10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. ^11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. ^12 I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.’ ^13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ ^14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

God calls us to act like the tax collector before Him, and not like the Pharisee.

On So-Called False Christians, False Scotsmen and Judging Others

Some of the evangelical blogs I have been receiving notifications of have been speaking on a common theme lately.  This theme is the concept of who is a true Christian and who is a false Christian, and whether or not it is right to treat true Christians differently from false Christians.

I am inclined to think such a view, while perhaps well meaning, is contrary to the view of Christ.

For openers, we could look at Matthew 7:

^1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. ^2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. ^3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? ^4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? ^5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

Judging whether one is a true Christian or not is a matter of judging of the person, not of the act.  It presumes to judge whether another has accepted Christ or not and fails to consider that the other person may be a Christian who fails at their commitment.

It also fails to consider whether the individual doing the judging could also be judged by another as not measuring up to his standards.

A person is a Christian by the virtue of Baptism (either explicit or through the Baptism of desire or of blood) [see 1 Pet 3:21-22].  A person will be a faithful or unfaithful Christian based on how they carry out their following of the faith.

It is unfortunate that in the Evangelical traditions, we have the notions of "accept the Lord as your personal salvation and you will be saved" because it leads to the fallacy of the No True Scotsman.  I've spoken on it before, but I'll recap briefly for those who haven't heard of it:

MacIntosh: No Scotsman puts Brown Sugar on his porridge

MacIver: What about Angus over there.  He puts brown sugar on his porridge

MacIntosh: He doesn't count.  No true Scotsman puts brown sugar on his porridge.

Under this reasoning, no counter-example by MacIver will be accepted, because the counter-example will be rejected as not being a "true" Scotsman.  However, MacIntosh's claim is based on his own definition, and makes him the judge and jury over who is a Scotsman.

Likewise the individual who seeks to decide who is or is not a true Christian is passing judgment over the other person's sincerity.

The problem is this can be cut any number of ways.  "Him?  He's a Papist!  He can't be a Christian!"  "Her?  She's got a drinking problem!  She can't be a Christian!"

God will judge the Christian who fails to live up to their calling of course.  But that does not mean we can pass this judgment on them as to whether or not they are seeking to follow Christ.  Christians can indeed be hypocritical (the common atheistic charge is that all of us Christians are hypocritical).  They can backslide.  However, this does not unmake their baptism.  It means they failed to live up to it, and if they do not repent they will be judged.

The second issue, of how we should treat others who are not "true Christians," must be measured before the requirement Jesus made of us in Matthew 5:

^43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ ^44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, ^45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. ^46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? ^47 And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? ^48 You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

In other words, if we treat "true" Christians differently from "false" Christians, we disobey Christ.

Now, we can indeed excommunicate a public sinner from the communion of believers, as St. Paul described in 1 Cor. 5, but this is not intended to be a punishment of condemnation, but an ostracism to return the wayward Christian to his senses.

The difference between how we should treat Christians living according to their faith and the Christian fallen is that the former we should pray that they may be sustained, while the latter we should pray for them to return to the path they fell away from, even if we must rebuke them.

Rebuking may be necessary of course.  We must always reject sin and refuse to accept it in others with indifference.  However, we should not deem a person damned, or not a Christian because he stumbled on the path.

And we should remember that the measure we use against others will be the measure used against us by Christ.

So before determining that a person is a "false Christian," we need to ask ourselves on what basis we make this claim, and on which authority we have the right to make it.

We should remember the parable of Christ in Luke 18:

^10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. ^11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. ^12 I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.’ ^13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ ^14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

God calls us to act like the tax collector before Him, and not like the Pharisee.

On Teacups, Aliens and Miracles: Hume's Error of Unproven Assumption

David Hume (1711-1776), Skeptic and Philosopher, once argued against the belief in miracles under the following reasoning:

The only rational basis for believing something is a miracle is that all alternate explanations are even more improbable.

This argument is popular with atheists.  In dealing with the claims of miracles, they claim it is easier to believe that the possibility of lying or being deceived than a miracle happening.  The question however is whether it can be considered accurate.

In a word, no, it is not accurate.  Nor is it reasonable or logical.

On the surface this might sound reasonable and logical.  However, the reason it is not is because: while something can seem more probable, that is not proof that it is what happened.

A Hypothetical Case

Let's take a hypothetical case.  A man claims to have been abducted by aliens.  The reasoning of Hume would say, Is it more probable that he had been abducted by aliens, or is it more probable he lied or was deceived?

The problem is, whether or not it is more probable the man did lie or was deceived is no indication that this is what did happen.  If, for example, a man is actually abducted by aliens it did happen even if it seems more likely that a man would lie than have it happen.

Or, as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle put it (in the words of Sherlock Holmes):

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

So when investigating the claim of a miracle, one has to start by eliminating the impossible, in a reasonable fashion.

So for the case of the example, we would investigate: Did he lie?  Was he deceived?  We would have to investigate these things.  We would need to investigate what did happen exactly, and the nature of the person claiming them.  During the course of the investigation, we would see if there are holes in the story, or if the person was known to be a liar or if it is possible that something natural happened which the hypothetical man in question misinterpreted.

(This, by the way is the process the Catholic Church uses — more or less — to investigate a claimed miracle or apparition.  It also goes a step further, investigating a diabolical cause if it seems to have a supernatural cause)

Hume's Error

Reasonable in this case does not mean the a priori claim "Miracles can't happen."  It means looking at the case as a whole to see if there is evidence for a lie, or deception or a natural cause.  However, if this turns out this cannot be established, it cannot be claimed as true that the individual was lying.

Hume's case against miracles is essentially an arguing in a circle:

1. Miracles cannot happen (Hume's enthymeme)
2. It is more probable that one who claims a Miracle must either be lying or mistaken
3. It is more probable they are lying or mistaken because miracles cannot happen

The problem of course is this argument assumes what needs to be proven (Miracles can't happen… which is a universal negative which is impossible to prove).

Ultimately, Hume's claim is based on a world view that miracles cannot happen, and any claim to one must be based on ignorance or deceit.  But unless this can be shown to happen, it is operating, not on science or reason, but on an atheist's "faith" in science to explain all things eventually.

The Atheist's Potential Counter-Objection

The atheist may at this time post the counter-objection: "Well, your assumption acts on the unproven premise that God does exist."  Sam Harris, noted atheist, has argued as a counter-analogy that he cannot prove a teacup does not orbit Pluto but he thinks it is probable that it does not.

The problem with this counter analogy is that it makes a great sound bite but proves nothing.  We could reasonably argue that there is no teacup orbiting Pluto, because there seems to be no way a teacup could even be out there.  Either we would have to put it out there, or someone else would have to put it out there.

Harris' (false) analogy argues essentially We did not put it out there, therefore it is not out there.  However, whether or not it is probable a teacup is out there, the atheist misses the point: Either it is out there or it is not out there.  If it is out there, then all the arguments about how unlikely it is are meaningless.

How Reason should approach Miracles

A claim of a miracle would be like dealing with a claim that a teacup was discovered out around Pluto and one needed to investigate the claim: What is the basis of the evidence it is there?  If it is there (and whether one believes in miracles or if one believes in "natural causes only," the case involves something which is there).  How could it have gotten out there? 

Science could tell us it is improbable that some cosmonaut having a tea break dropped it and it drifted out to Pluto because of the vastness of space compared to how far Pluto is from us.  In such a case, it would mean either it had a natural formation around the orbit of Pluto, or else aliens dropped it there.

Ultimately this is the problem with Hume's approach to miracles.  It is not enough to tell us something can't be a miracle.  It has to tell us what it actually is.  If science cannot tell us what it is, it needs to acknowledge this fact.

It is this failure to do so, which is based on the unproven assumption that miracles are impossible, that makes the claims of the atheist nothing more than a childish retort of "nuh uh!" to a claim.