But still, let me quickly add something:
I don’t think that hearing many doubtful reports about “miracles” SHOULD chip away at our faith (even if those reports about “false miracles” actually DO chip away at our faith).

I personally think, that we should look at how many trustworthy reports about miracles there are and then shouldn’t let our evaluation of THOSE (trustworthy) reports be changed by there being 10 doubtful reports for every single trustworthy report.

Here’s an analogy: Even if I receive 10x more spam than real mail, this doesn’t make me think that the real mail I receive somehow should count as spam, too. I know that real mail exists regardless of how much spam is produced.

Similarly with miracles:
IF there are actual miracles, there will be many false reports about miracles. And IF there aren’t actual miracles, there will be many false reports about miracles.
–> So, as a rational person, I shouldn’t be able to conclude much from the availability of many false reports about miracles…

yes, you might be right.

Another possibility is that we DO change standards after witnessing a miracle but that the standards we had BEFORE seeing the miracle were too high. Maybe before the miracle I have unrealistic expectations in that I think the miracle would fully convince me. But then, once the supposed miracle occurs, I see that my expectations were too high. I realize that (as I’ve been taught by Big Dan ) that whether I interpret something as a miracle depends very much on my background beliefs on whether miracles are possible and probable. Or I realize after witnessing the miracle that I hadn’t thought of all the possible alternative explanations.

In any case, I think we just CAN’T expect miracles to do the whole job of making us confident about God’s reality.
This doesn’t mean that they can’t strongly reinforce our existing suspicion “about there being something more to this world than is visible” or that they can’t help bolster whatever degree of belief we do have that God is present…

Thanks for your comment!

Hm, if I understand you correctly you say that it doesn’t matter that much whether the evidence is natural or supernatural. I think I fully agree with that. It’s just that there’s some extra excitement to superatural evidence which gives it an air of being more convincing. i think it is very human and allright to find supernatural evidence in some way more convincing than natural evidence.

We also agree fully that there is importance to the question of whether faith is true. What I don’t quite get (also with Plantinga) is why evidence should not be that important. I fully agree that faith most often gets imparted on people in completely different ways than by way of evidence (they inherit it from their parents, they receive it from the holy ghost, they are born with an innate trust in God, etc.etc.etc.). And many of those ways are very justified ways of acquiring faith even if the holder of faith cannot give evidence for the justifiability of his belief/lifestyle.
However, when I am in a situation of doubt and questioning and faith doesn’t just “happen” in me, what else shall I do than crave for evidence? If I can be ACTIVE in ANY way to help my longing for faith to become answered, then I’ll do it. And gathering evidence seems like a natural way of actively doing something to reach faith.

Sorry if I misunderstood you or commented something different from what you said.

I think it is a good excuse for doubting even after witnessing miracles to claim that there’s always loophole and you can never really be sure whether you’ve witnessed a miracle (rather than just an exceptional random event, hypnotic techniques, undiscovered natural laws, hoax, etc.). I really think that often this IS a legitimate excuse for continuing to doubt.

But then, isn’t it sometimes a bad excuse? Can’t we observe that we adjust the standards after we witness miracles? BEFORE the miracle we would count something of the kind I witnessed this summer as fairly good evidence for God’s existence and action in the world. But AFTER witnessing the miracle, I increase the demands a miracle has to meet in order to count as convincing. Suddenly, out of nowhere, I come up with additional suspicions I haven’t brought up before. It’s almost like I try to escape being convinced by the miracle.

(P.S.: I am aware that my posts and comments occasionally point in different directions or contradict each other. I actually DO try to be consistent, but then my thoughts just go exploring in different and contradictory directions)

P.P.S.: I think parts of our thoughts are really VERY close. Because the thing about believing-vs-living has been on my mind a lot, too.

I am actually comforted by the fact that those guys wanted evidence, too. And they got it. So, it can’t be that illegitimate to ask for evidence.

But I am also discomforted: In some way what you say puts the “That the disciples were so energised to build the church proves that Jesus must have truly resurrected”-argument on its head. My question is, couldn’t one argue as follows: “That the disciples still had doubts about Jesus’ status proves that he didn’t really walk on water and heal sick people”

But has there ever been an incontrovertable miracle? You’re expressing some uncertainty about the “cross” healing. I have suspicions about the leg-lengthening video. There are always these loopholes. And it’s not like we’re deliberately setting out to not believe. We’re just using our “God-given” brains to check things out properly. How stupid would we be if we did believe on the strength of a “miracle” that was later shown have another explanation?

The more these discussions go on, the more I can’t help thinking… it’s not what you believe, it’s how you live your life that counts. Obvious I know, and not much help to those who are trying to reconcile these doubts with life in a Christian community.