Here are some curious forms of argument that I want to play with. First:
- Doctrine D is so absurd that no one could believe D while fully realizing its absurdity, except by a miracle.
- Someone believes D while fully realizing its absurdity.
- So, a miracle has occurred.
Let's try this:
- Doctrine D is so absurd that no one could reasonably believe D while fully realizing its absurdity, except by a miracle.
- Someone reasonably believes D while fully realizing its absurdity.
- So, a miracle has occurred.
- If at least one of the beliefs central to x's life is not reasonable, then x is an unreasonable person.
- x is not unreasonable.
- One of the beliefs central to x's life is D.
- x fully realizes the absurdity of D while believing D.
- So someone reaosnably believes D while fully realizing its absurdity.
The conclusions of the above arguments were that a miracle has occurred. Can we conclude that D is true? Well, we would have to look at our best explanation of the miracle. If it involves God, then we have reason to think D is true. Here's an argument that avoids the detour through miracles.
- Doctrine D is so absurd that no reasonable person would hold D as a belief central to her life while fully realizing D's absurdity unless she knew D to be true.
- Some reasonable person held D as a belief central to her life while fully realizing D's absurdity.
- So, somebody knew D to be true.
- So, D is true.
I think the big difficulty with arguments of this form in the cases most familiar to me, namely with D a doctrine from the Christian tradition, is that people who are paradigm examples of rationality, like Thomas Aquinas, do not take the doctrine to be really absurd.