Board index ‹ Miracles

[Newbie]

I saw a video on youtube recently (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OssZkWU-ZjQ) where Christopher Hitchens, using David Hume's definition of a miracle as a suspension of nature, destroys the ideas of miracles. It proves nothing, he claims, except that some people will believe anything.

[jimwalton]

I guess my first thought is, "What makes David Hume's definition of a miracle as a suspension of the laws of physics the gold standard of miracle definitions?" The Bible never claims that God violated the laws he himself imposed on the world as a theatrical device only fit to impress impressionable savages. Any Christian who has read the Bible would more likely contend that miracles are the forces of nature (yes, physics), but at a different speed and on a different scale. Water always turns to wine, but it gets sucked up the vine, grows in the grapes, gets stomped and fermented over the process of months or years. Or, a miracle makes it happen now. People's bodies heal, but when Jesus does it in an instant, that's a miracle. Bread turns into more bread, and fish into more fish all the time, but Jesus did it instantly. Maybe a miracle is God working with the laws of nature, not against them. Maybe it's Hume's definition where the problem lies. Maybe the laws of nature are naturally recurring events, and a miracle is a naturally nonrecurring event. After all, the laws of nature are not really laws, but rather more accurately forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak and strong field forces) and constructs (velocity, mass, energy, acceleration). Einstein's theory of relativity lets us know that velocity makes a difference, and can come into play in ways we are yet deciphering. I happen to think Hume and Hitchens are both setting up a straw man. It's quite possible that God has forces as yet unknown to us, and can manipulate velocity to initiate relative states. "Destroys" the idea of miracles? I just don't see it. Talk to me some more.

[Newbie]

I think CS Lewis had a definition of miracles, which was anything that couldn't have happened without God intervening, or something similar to that. I like this definition, but like most definitions of miracles, it's impossible to prove.

[jimwalton]

That's where the rub comes in, then. Since a miracle, by ANY definition, is a once-only, nonrecurring event, it is outside the scope of science (which can only observe and test recurring sequences) and naturalistic evidence. Miracles can only be proven in two ways: (1) that they can be shown to be logically consistent with the physical world—the way things are, or (2) by enough corroborating, credible eyewitnesses to substantiate the claim being made.

If I put $20 in your pocket today, and then another $20 in there tomorrow, logic and reason would tell me that there will be $40 in your pocket. And of course that's true, provided that no one has meddled in your pocket. So the first thing to notice is whether your presuppositions have ruled out all meddling by definition. In that case, of course it's impossible to prove. The second thing to notice is that nature of full of once-only, non-recurring events, such as the cosmic blast that happened in Russia this year. It would be sort of foolish for a group of scientists to gather there saying, "C'mon, do it again!"

As far as the second, if you have enough trustworthy people whose eyewitness accounts corroborate with each other, even though the event may not repeat, it could be considered to be accepted as reality.

No matter how you cut it, it's a matter of faith. If you believe (by your presuppositions) that "meddling" is impossible, it's impossible to prove, but it's where you hang your hat. If the next guy "believes" in an open system, where there are spiritual forces (undetectable by science), and meddling is possible, it's also impossible to prove, but it's as reasonable a choice given the alternatives.

It's the same with eyewitnesses. If a large group of people claim to have seen a UFO, you can believe they did or believe they are a bunch of hallucinatory lunatics.

Can anyone prove that a once-only nonrecurring event is a miracle from God or not? No, because either way it's an interpretation of what you've seen or experienced. We all decide based on what we determine to be consistency with our understanding of the world and the evidences on which we build those understandings.

[Newbie]

Little confused by what you are saying. It seems like you are saying "Miracles can only be proven in two ways", saying they are possible to prove, but also say "it's also impossible to prove". I think you may be saying proof to one person would not be proof to another person?

[jimwalton]

Yeah, duh, sorry about the confusion. Yeah, science can't prove it because it's non-repeatable, and eyewitnesses don't prove it, because a person has to choose to believe them or not. A "miracle" is an interpretation of an event or experience, whether perceived as a suspension of nature, an interference in nature, or working with the laws of nature. I think people define miracles by degrees based on, well, in simple and stupid cases, what I was hoping would happen ("I got all green lights. It's a miracle!), or more reasonably, based on the degree of unlikelihood that it could or would occur ("The Red Sea parted when Moses held up his stick. What are the odds????"). I guess the only strength of evidence is really on the probability of its occurring when and how it did.