I'm giving you a hand. Get it?
This post gets into boring theological stuff. If you're like most people, you'll wisely skip over this. Enter, LJ-Cut!
One semi-popular internet debate tact re: God and (in this case, particularly Christian) religion is the 'Why does God hate amputees?' line. It's lesser known than the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but it's also a good example of why I love the english language and communication in general: You're able to, in a single sentence, say a hell of a lot more than than your sentence alone formally lays out. I'm dealing with this one in particular because I see too many theists flub the response. I don't like seeing people with otherwise good arguments thrown for a loop because they're confused.
The logic in the line works as follows: Supposedly, there are miracles (cures and healings in particular) that defy medical explanation, and therefore get attributed to God's work. But for all of the healings, there are no cases of amputees growing back their limbs. This, in spite of amputations being a common affliction throughout the world. Apparently, God is happy to cure all kinds of other afflictions - but not amputees. Therefore, God must hate amputees - or, more likely, God's not healing anyone, and the people who think they've been miraculously cured just got lucky.
Sounds reasonable, eh? And pretty damning if so. If the argument has any strength, though, it's by virtue of the proper response requiring one hell of a lot more text compared to a single line. But the underlying logic is the most important thing to grasp, so we're going through this systematically.
1) The first important flaw is an easy one to miss, because it's not a question of logic per se, but medical information: Actually, limb regrowth affects humans as well. It's one of the reasons that abortion tends to be such a tricky affair - "Fetuses can regrow almost anything that gets damaged while in the womb." Less impressive is the knowledge that young children are often able to regrow fingertips as well, but an amputation is an amputation - and I'm surprised that knowledge of this is as limited as it seems to be, considering how interesting a part of human development it is. So 'How come human amputees don't get healed?' immediately falls back to 'How come grown human amputees don't get healed?' Part of this is usually due to hubris on the part of the person making the challenge, that sweet mental image of an uncaring God tossing out healings left and right but looking on amputees with disgust. But what about adult humans? That's damning enough, right?
2) Well, no. Successful reattachment of limbs has been going on for decades now, thanks to the advances of medical science. As you can see in the article (among others, if you search around), the future prospects for limb reattachment, regrowth, and otherwise are considerable. So even adult amputees have been healed - trivial information, verifiable by many. We could bring up prosthetics, other forms of relief both physical and mental, but in a way it's not necessary. Down goes the argument again, and another caveat is added: We're on to, 'Okay, but how come no miraculous healings of amputees are argued?'
3) But does that stand? In Luke, we have Jesus reattaching the ear of a servant after Peter gets too hasty with the swordplay. The Catholic 'Miracle of Calanda' is a reputed case of an amputee being healed in the 1600s. The response here is obvious: Even if documented, the miracle of Calanda happened too long ago to be certain of. The Jesus miracle, moreso. Not a loss, but a rephrase: 'Why are records of miracle amputee healings rarer in comparison to other types?'
* This isn't part of the argument, but I'm urging you to pay close attention from this point on, because we're getting to the heart of the matter. Before you read on, ask yourself: In this argument, is there any subtle claim about God - a very disputable claim - inherent in the argument presented by the skeptic? A question of God's methods of operation that should be questioned by just about any theist, orthodox or not? Don't worry, we'll get to it.
4) The remaining aspects of the argument require a split into several responses.
4a) Amputees are chosen as an example for miracles precisely because few claims to this kind of miracle are had. But let's assume they were more common. Very common, in fact: A world where claims of limbs miraculously regrowing are more common. Is the skeptic faced with undeniable evidence of God? Well, no, and for two reasons: First, the context of a miracle in this argument is "an event which occurs through a mechanism that is unknown." If an amazing event actualized through an unknown mechanism were sufficient force to verify the existence of God, everyone would be a theist for reasons ranging to the origin of the universe, the question of consciousness, quantum measurement, etc. Even if the mechanism remains forever unknown, this wouldn't be sufficient force: One could always expect a 'normal' explanation to be found in the future, or lacking that, argue that the explanation was likely mundane, but simply unprovable. The only way to rectify this is by A) Understanding that the event which happened was a miracle, and B) Understanding the mechanisms behind the event itself. But by the reasoning we're seeing here, to know B is to exclude A. With this understanding, there is no way whatsoever to prove a miracle to a skeptic by force of evidence. (This problem puts the skeptic in an interesting situation, but I'll save that for another time.)
4b) Not only would the presence of amputees miracles not necessarily (certainly not logically) persuade a skeptic, but another problem pops up: The argument can simply shift to another affliction, medical or otherwise, for which miracles seem rare or non-existant. What about babies born with Harlequin disease? Or another affliction, either by class ('People with Down Syndrome?') or specific type ('Someone with Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma?') Not only that, but even if miracles of every conceivable class and type are common, then the next objection comes: 'Why did Anne regrow her leg, but Bob didn't?' Under the presumption of the skeptic, questions of apathy on the part of God linger until the universe is operating in a way that utterly defies prediction and explanation. Note that whether or not a skeptic says 'Well, if I saw an amputee healing, *I* sure would be convinced!' has no bearing on any of this - the issue is related to the argument itself, not the arguer. And an argument of 'I'm not convinced of God's existence, because I don't see this class or type of affliction miraculously healed' needs to have it pointed out that the argument given is an argument that arguably cannot be satisfied.
5) If you haven't figured out the real trick yet, here's the revelation: It's implying that the only way God works in the world is through miracles. Which is why responses 1 and 2 will actually piss off most skeptics more than persuade them - because the argument requires 'God's work' to be relegated to an extraordinarily narrow class of event. But the explicitly miraculous, the apparent breaking of natural law, has never been the sole - or even primary - domain of God's work in western theism. From the God of the american Deists discerning rights of man through natural law, to Christian clergy and laity 'doing the work of God' in hospitals and other forms of service, to the basic plea to 'Give us this day & our daily bread' entreatment of God to maintain working order, to otherwise.. we're dealing with an age-old attitude of the divine working through the natural and mundane. This takes us back to 1 and 2, with a new understanding: There is no compelling reason against, and plenty of compelling reasons for, the theist pointing at the advances of logistics, science, and other 'natural' innovations, and claiming them as part of divine intention. In fact, considering the biblical exhortation that great works will be performed by others than Christ, I personally think the explanation gets interesting.
The natural response is, 'Well, you ascribe good things to God, but not the bad things. What's the reason for that?' But by that point, you've fallen back to the Problem of Evil - and the 'Why does God hate amputees?' argument is exposed for what it is: Bullshit, dressed up in rhetoric to catch people offguard, and persuade through trick rather than through reason. It's eliminated, and more importantly, you're able to understand why it's eliminated - and hopefully have a greater understanding of divine action and authorship.
I'm leaving some tertiary points aside here - various ways to view 'miracles' themselves, purpose and reasonable extent of faith, the problem of 'proving God' even if God certainly exists, etc. But that's for another time; for now, it's enough to expose the "God Hates Amputees" flaw. Next time, I'll... probably post about molasses. Using that a lot in cooking lately. It's an acquired taste.
One semi-popular internet debate tact re: God and (in this case, particularly Christian) religion is the 'Why does God hate amputees?' line. It's lesser known than the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but it's also a good example of why I love the english language and communication in general: You're able to, in a single sentence, say a hell of a lot more than than your sentence alone formally lays out. I'm dealing with this one in particular because I see too many theists flub the response. I don't like seeing people with otherwise good arguments thrown for a loop because they're confused.
The logic in the line works as follows: Supposedly, there are miracles (cures and healings in particular) that defy medical explanation, and therefore get attributed to God's work. But for all of the healings, there are no cases of amputees growing back their limbs. This, in spite of amputations being a common affliction throughout the world. Apparently, God is happy to cure all kinds of other afflictions - but not amputees. Therefore, God must hate amputees - or, more likely, God's not healing anyone, and the people who think they've been miraculously cured just got lucky.
Sounds reasonable, eh? And pretty damning if so. If the argument has any strength, though, it's by virtue of the proper response requiring one hell of a lot more text compared to a single line. But the underlying logic is the most important thing to grasp, so we're going through this systematically.
1) The first important flaw is an easy one to miss, because it's not a question of logic per se, but medical information: Actually, limb regrowth affects humans as well. It's one of the reasons that abortion tends to be such a tricky affair - "Fetuses can regrow almost anything that gets damaged while in the womb." Less impressive is the knowledge that young children are often able to regrow fingertips as well, but an amputation is an amputation - and I'm surprised that knowledge of this is as limited as it seems to be, considering how interesting a part of human development it is. So 'How come human amputees don't get healed?' immediately falls back to 'How come grown human amputees don't get healed?' Part of this is usually due to hubris on the part of the person making the challenge, that sweet mental image of an uncaring God tossing out healings left and right but looking on amputees with disgust. But what about adult humans? That's damning enough, right?
2) Well, no. Successful reattachment of limbs has been going on for decades now, thanks to the advances of medical science. As you can see in the article (among others, if you search around), the future prospects for limb reattachment, regrowth, and otherwise are considerable. So even adult amputees have been healed - trivial information, verifiable by many. We could bring up prosthetics, other forms of relief both physical and mental, but in a way it's not necessary. Down goes the argument again, and another caveat is added: We're on to, 'Okay, but how come no miraculous healings of amputees are argued?'
3) But does that stand? In Luke, we have Jesus reattaching the ear of a servant after Peter gets too hasty with the swordplay. The Catholic 'Miracle of Calanda' is a reputed case of an amputee being healed in the 1600s. The response here is obvious: Even if documented, the miracle of Calanda happened too long ago to be certain of. The Jesus miracle, moreso. Not a loss, but a rephrase: 'Why are records of miracle amputee healings rarer in comparison to other types?'
* This isn't part of the argument, but I'm urging you to pay close attention from this point on, because we're getting to the heart of the matter. Before you read on, ask yourself: In this argument, is there any subtle claim about God - a very disputable claim - inherent in the argument presented by the skeptic? A question of God's methods of operation that should be questioned by just about any theist, orthodox or not? Don't worry, we'll get to it.
4) The remaining aspects of the argument require a split into several responses.
4a) Amputees are chosen as an example for miracles precisely because few claims to this kind of miracle are had. But let's assume they were more common. Very common, in fact: A world where claims of limbs miraculously regrowing are more common. Is the skeptic faced with undeniable evidence of God? Well, no, and for two reasons: First, the context of a miracle in this argument is "an event which occurs through a mechanism that is unknown." If an amazing event actualized through an unknown mechanism were sufficient force to verify the existence of God, everyone would be a theist for reasons ranging to the origin of the universe, the question of consciousness, quantum measurement, etc. Even if the mechanism remains forever unknown, this wouldn't be sufficient force: One could always expect a 'normal' explanation to be found in the future, or lacking that, argue that the explanation was likely mundane, but simply unprovable. The only way to rectify this is by A) Understanding that the event which happened was a miracle, and B) Understanding the mechanisms behind the event itself. But by the reasoning we're seeing here, to know B is to exclude A. With this understanding, there is no way whatsoever to prove a miracle to a skeptic by force of evidence. (This problem puts the skeptic in an interesting situation, but I'll save that for another time.)
4b) Not only would the presence of amputees miracles not necessarily (certainly not logically) persuade a skeptic, but another problem pops up: The argument can simply shift to another affliction, medical or otherwise, for which miracles seem rare or non-existant. What about babies born with Harlequin disease? Or another affliction, either by class ('People with Down Syndrome?') or specific type ('Someone with Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma?') Not only that, but even if miracles of every conceivable class and type are common, then the next objection comes: 'Why did Anne regrow her leg, but Bob didn't?' Under the presumption of the skeptic, questions of apathy on the part of God linger until the universe is operating in a way that utterly defies prediction and explanation. Note that whether or not a skeptic says 'Well, if I saw an amputee healing, *I* sure would be convinced!' has no bearing on any of this - the issue is related to the argument itself, not the arguer. And an argument of 'I'm not convinced of God's existence, because I don't see this class or type of affliction miraculously healed' needs to have it pointed out that the argument given is an argument that arguably cannot be satisfied.
5) If you haven't figured out the real trick yet, here's the revelation: It's implying that the only way God works in the world is through miracles. Which is why responses 1 and 2 will actually piss off most skeptics more than persuade them - because the argument requires 'God's work' to be relegated to an extraordinarily narrow class of event. But the explicitly miraculous, the apparent breaking of natural law, has never been the sole - or even primary - domain of God's work in western theism. From the God of the american Deists discerning rights of man through natural law, to Christian clergy and laity 'doing the work of God' in hospitals and other forms of service, to the basic plea to 'Give us this day & our daily bread' entreatment of God to maintain working order, to otherwise.. we're dealing with an age-old attitude of the divine working through the natural and mundane. This takes us back to 1 and 2, with a new understanding: There is no compelling reason against, and plenty of compelling reasons for, the theist pointing at the advances of logistics, science, and other 'natural' innovations, and claiming them as part of divine intention. In fact, considering the biblical exhortation that great works will be performed by others than Christ, I personally think the explanation gets interesting.
The natural response is, 'Well, you ascribe good things to God, but not the bad things. What's the reason for that?' But by that point, you've fallen back to the Problem of Evil - and the 'Why does God hate amputees?' argument is exposed for what it is: Bullshit, dressed up in rhetoric to catch people offguard, and persuade through trick rather than through reason. It's eliminated, and more importantly, you're able to understand why it's eliminated - and hopefully have a greater understanding of divine action and authorship.
I'm leaving some tertiary points aside here - various ways to view 'miracles' themselves, purpose and reasonable extent of faith, the problem of 'proving God' even if God certainly exists, etc. But that's for another time; for now, it's enough to expose the "God Hates Amputees" flaw. Next time, I'll... probably post about molasses. Using that a lot in cooking lately. It's an acquired taste.