Its been a while since I updated this. I'm still working on my "A Religious History", its not particularly high priority. I've heard that some swamijis (i.e monks, religious leaders etc) are popping by in a month or two. So I'm thinking of brushing up, structuring my philosophical framework. (Notice how I use commas like news headlines.) Its a lot of work but perhaps I'd like to start with something that is not very heavy. So I picked Miracles.
Why do I not believe in miracles? I'm a magician. There are a lot of really cool tricks which I can perform which I believe are atleast on the lower end of a scale of which the higher end could be considered miracles. Most people cannot think of how these "mini-miracles" could be performed without some supernatural powers, which is fine. It's the way magic is designed. However, due my my own admission that I do not possess supernatural powers and my portrayal of myself as a performer (as opposed to some great devotee of god) most people do not think of these as miracles or eve "mini-miracles". They assert that "only God can do miracles" which feels like an awful double standard to me.
I would like to use an analogy of a scale for miracles (from 1 - 10) and a similar scale projected onto it specifying to what extent someone can comprehend it eg. at 00.1 we have horrible sleight of hand. As a result people can easily comprehend it. As it gets higher, it is less comprehensible.
So if let's say that Sai Baba does a miracle (lets say i'm pretty sure he doesn't, looks exactly like sleight of hand to me) and its oh so mind blowing that it hits a 10 on an amazing scale. I have seen magicians do miracles of 5 while I might do those scoring 1. Even though I might be able to perform 1's, know how 5's are done and not have much of a clue about 10's, I can make a comparison to laypeople. Laypeople might only have a clue about 0.5's and a vague idea about 1's and absolutely no clue about 5's. So there are laypeople and there is me. They have a certain "extent of knowledge" that can be projected on this scale. I also do have a certain "extent of knowledge" but mine would be much larger, I know upto 5's. However, the fact that I do not know 10's do not in anyway make them a miracle the way a layperson's not knowing a 5 makes it one. My ignorance in no way validates the authenticity of a miracle.
So I think I've done this ok for now and I'd like to conclude with a quote by David Hume from "Of Miracles":
"When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion."
