The Miracle Myth: Why Belief in the Resurrection and the Supernatural Is Unjustified by Lawrence Shapiro

Abstract

Reviewed by: The Miracle Myth: Why Belief in the Resurrection and the Supernatural Is Unjustified by Lawrence Shapiro Glenn B. Siniscalchi lawrence shapiro, The Miracle Myth: Why Belief in the Resurrection and the Supernatural Is Unjustified (New York: Columbia University Press, 2016). Pp. xvii + 168. $27.95. One of the steps for establishing the credibility of a divine revelation consists in identifying the reality of miracles in a religiously charged context. If miracles have not accompanied the teachings of a self-proclaimed prophet, then his revelatory claims should be considered spurious. Although Lawrence Shapiro does not deny the possibility of miracles tout court, he reports that believing in them is unjustified: "My goal in this book is to convince you that no one has ever had or currently has good reasons for believing in miracles" (p. xiv). Shapiro's accessible and thought-provoking book will appeal to fundamental theologians, philosophers, and intelligent laypersons for establishing the epistemic warrants for believing in miracles. After explaining the differences between justification, explanation, knowledge, and belief, S. introduces the reader to the way in which an inference to the best explanation should be understood and formulated. When garnering the evidence for a purported event, one must test the available hypotheses that can account for the data. Hypotheses are strengthened or weakened by the assumptions that affect them. Because miracles should be understood as improbable "events that are the result of supernatural, typically divine, forces" (p. 18), naturalistic hypotheses should always be preferred over supernatural ones. Undoubtedly, S. has been influenced by David Hume's case against miracles. There are two weaknesses in the book, both of which relate to assessing the merits of competing hypotheses as they pertain to the evidence for Jesus's resurrection. The first is that S. does not consider the arguments and implications of natural theology. Contemporary defenders of miracles not only provide arguments for the existence of God; they also show why God is likely to communicate with humans in a publicly accessible way. It is fitting that God will reveal meaningful answers to questions about human origins, purpose, identity, morality, and destiny. S. sees the implications: "Well, of course, the existence of a god who wanted to resurrect Jesus would increase the probability of Jesus's resurrection. Indeed, if that god were omnipotent, I would say it raises the probability of the resurrection to one" (p. 84; cf. pp. 52, 55). Unless S. presents sound arguments for the existence of finite gods or the semipotent deity (pp. 46, 49), the prima facie conclusion is that theism strengthens the case for the resurrection. Instead of interacting with recent scholarship in natural theology, S. maintains that theism is epistemically equivalent to other worldviews: "But how do we verify [End Page 554] assumptions about god's characteristics and 'personality?' . . . We don't have in our possession the equivalent of a god baseball card on which god's stats are revealed" (p. 44; cf. pp. 47, 50-51, 56, etc.). Though S. describes miracles as "improbable events," natural theology allows us to conclude that miracles should be expected at one point or another in a theistic universe. The second weakness is that S. does not recognize the religious context in which Christianity emerged. Miracles do not occur in a vacuum but accompany claims and practices that supposedly come from God. Instead of taking the surrounding socioreligious context of miracle claims into consideration, Shapiro affirms that miracles should always be explained by natural causes that we do not currently understand: "If we take as a background assumption the idea that people don't understand everything that goes on in the natural world, . . . then the possibility that an unknown natural cause is responsible for the weeping statue [read: miracle] is no less compelling than the hypothesis that says something supernatural is the cause" (p. 51; cf. 56). This objection harks back to Baruch Spinoza's argument against miracles. Moreover, critical historians can provide clues about the past that coincidentally correspond with God's intentions in revealing the answers to the deep questions of human existence. In the case of early Christianity, the best tentative conclusions have been used to tip the scales in favor...