Why did ancient people classify some events as miracles?

[Boojatta]

If their understanding of the regular patterns of the universe was weak enough that they simply didn't know what was or wasn't a violation of those patterns, then how could they have known that even with modern science we would be today unable to explain those events?

Suppose a star that was previously visible to the naked eye only at night were described as suddenly becoming visible during the day, and remaining visible for days or weeks. Suppose that in some religion's scriptures the claim were made that the brightening of the star was a miracle. In that case, we would have good reason to believe that it was simply a supernova, but the writers of the scriptures wouldn't have known.

There are at least three possibilities:
1. A real event is described in garbled terms and eventually, as the story is passed on, the story becomes completely false or extremely misleading.
2. An event that didn't occur is simply invented out of whole cloth.
3. A real event is described accurately or reasonably accurately.

[GoneOffShore]

1. I'd point you to Arthur C. Clarke

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

[Vehl]

9. awesome

I love that quote.

In the event that the ancient people were not hallucinating/making stuff up/lying the only explanation for some of those miracles has to be advanced technology that those people of that era simply couple not wrap their heads around.

If one were to teleport back in time and use a cellphone, it will be called a miracle.

imho, given that the ancient observers were correct...then all the god/s they attribute these miracles to were most probably UFO's/Aliens.

and no i usually dont subscribe to the large% of BS that some of the ancient-aliens proponents spew, but that's the only way to explain away these miracles* in a rational manner.


* = provided that these events actually happened.

PPS : naturally this excludes all the miracles that we can explain way using today's science and natural events.

[cleanhippie]

2. Because they lacked a better understanding of the natural world.

It's a simple answer, really.

[Boojatta]

3. I would think that the less you can explain, the more

likely you are to classify an event as simply unexplained, and not as a violation of the (unknown) laws of nature.

Consider an analogy:

Suppose you never learned the rules of chess, but for some reason you start spending a lot of time watching people play chess games. Perhaps you are interested in only the social interaction and not in the games themselves, but you become aware of the moves without taking any interest in them. Every now and then you might see a move that strikes you as unusual. However, you probably wouldn't make an accusation that the rules of the game have been violated.

[cleanhippie]

4. That may be true today, but your example was of "ancient people"

And they attributed the "unknown" to all sorts of supernatural causes, not just simply "unknown." They were ignorant about the world they lived in, which is why they attributed some events a miracles.

A simple answer, really.

[Boojatta]

5. From our point of view, they were ignorant

because they weren't born with the advantage of cultural capital that was itself created by people who were ignorant and who made discoveries to cure their own ignorance.

However, I don't see that ignorance automatically generates misconceptions. Some early European settlers in North America had trouble surviving in some areas, and some of them made extra difficulties for themselves by assuming that they were so much more advanced than the indigenous people that there was nothing to be learnt from the indigenous people. Perhaps people who are born into this era's technological civilization are similarly making a mistake if they assume that, every time ancient people thought they were observing a miracle, they were simply being primitive and foolish.

[cleanhippie]

6. Well, that is an interesting thought.

But I am sticking with my answer.

[Boojatta]

7. Interesting? Thank you for saying so.

I have no intention of causing you to change your answer. If you have any ideas that you want to add to this discussion, then I encourage you to add them. There is probably much that has been left unexamined, and you know what they say: the unexamined conversation is not worth having.

[cleanhippie]

8. Sorry, no snark was intended at all. It was a very interesting thought.