Have you ever described an event as miraculous? Perhaps it was a near-miss accident, recovery from an illness or some other fortuitous moment in your life. Did you stop to consider what you meant by that description or did or roll off your tongue like so many other cultural conventions, without a second thought?
One of the reasons I write this blog1 is to allow people the opportunity to examine the world and themselves in more detail and more reflectively than they might ordinarily be inclined to do. In this I have largely attempted to do so using science directly, by showing research that reveals facts about ourselves and the world around us that are not necessarily intuitively obvious (such as biases in our reasoning).
I thought I would deviate from the strictly scientific today to discuss miracles, especially the depiction of miracles in the media and what is really meant when we resort to the designation of “miracle” in describing events.
Recently I have started reading popular philosophy books, trying to be a well rounded person or something, or possibly just so I sound intelligent at parties2. I may delve a little bit into philosophy here but hopefully can keep it light enough that you won’t even notice.
One of the books on my reading list brought up the concept of miracles and attempted to outline the different definitions that are attached to this word3. This sparked in me a thought about how the word is used by those around me, in the general population these multiple versions of the meaning get seem to get merged into an amorphous description that verges on meaninglessness.
Many of the definitions of the word that I could find invoked some sort of supernatural component, in particular the assertion that such an event contravenes the laws of nature. By this criteria I have never witnessed, nor seen credible reports of a single miracle, yet I hear the word used all the time4. How can we reconcile how the word is defined and how it is used?
Let us note one instance of the (over)use of this word, last year when an aeroplane crash landed in the Hudson river after hitting a flock of birds soon after take off the event was labelled a miracle. Currently no fewer than ten news stories with the word “miracle” in the title are listed in the Wikipedia article about this event and I suspect there are many more not mentioned. This seems to be the type of event that attracts exclamations of “Miracle” yet if we delve into the details there is no point at which we can reliably determine that the laws of nature have been suspended or otherwise altered to allow the final outcome.
If we are committed to the definition that for a miracle to have occurred the laws of nature must be violated then this event does not qualify.
Of the multiple meanings that I mentioned above it would appear the most frequently used makes the word “miracle” synonymous with “unlikely coincidence”. This though is insufficient to describe what most people would consider to be miracles as it ignores whether or not an event has any beneficial consequences, so lets add that requirement into our ad hoc definition.
The trouble with this definition is that it leaves us unable to determine what we might term “True Miracles” from merely random (beneficial) occurrences. Especially in as much as, like the Hudson river crash above, said miracles have no religious significance5. This pre-supposes however that we would wish to make such a distinction, if (as I suspect) our use of the word actually no-longer assumes the intervention of supernatural forces then our definition of “True Miracles” becomes superfluous, no different than what we might consider a regular miracle.
In this case the word simply becomes short hand for an amazing6 coincidence that is of benefit to a person or persons7. It would then seem that our definition of miracle actually stems from our own inability to sufficiently appreciate how probability acts in our lives. How many of us are in a position to calculate how probable any particular event is? Our normal day-to-day experience is a poor guide regarding this but if we cannot perform the calculation then by what basis do we conclude that an event is likely or unlikely?
I will readily admit that musings like this are have little practical significance but I think are still worth considering in order to develop for ourselves a more consistent and precise outlook. I hope that there are others beside myself that also see value in this.
footnotes
1. In general not this particular entry.
2. Who am I kidding? I don’t go to parties.
3. The definitions were broken down into 4: a) Violation miracles where the laws of nature are violated; b) Willed miracles where miracles occur via an act of a supreme being’s will; c) Inexplicable miracles where the event is unexplainable via the laws of nature though does not necessarily violate them; and finally d) Coincidence miracles, as discussed in this article.
See Nicholas Everitt’s “The Non-Existence of God” p112-ish.
4. Okay, that’s an exaggeration, but certainly more often than my experience tells me it should be used.
5. Try putting the word “miracle” into google news and see how many look explicitly religious.
6. Or not so amazing, depending on your point of view.
7. Miracle is definitely easier to say, though it does leave us open to misinterpretation by those who apply a more strict definition of the word than we do.
Scepticon 
Mr. Scepticon, I would be honored to banter to and fro with you all on this matter.
You say, “If we are committed to the definition that for a miracle to have occurred the laws of nature must be violated then this event does not qualify.”
My friend, I will number a few observations on the subject:
1. The most essential element of a miracle is that it is an act of God. This speaks to the cause and origin of the event, and makes no comment as to the effect (such as violating a so-called law of nature).
For this reason, it almost violates the laws of human nature for folks who ascribe to the twin religions of naturalism and scientism to ever seriously use the term, miracle, in their vernacular at all. When it is used, as in the news articles, it is really a sort of hyperbole, in which the term has all but totally lost its original meaning in common usage.
2. The Christian position is that the laws of nature themselves are the miraculous creation of God. As such, each nanno second is a miracle, in terms of time occurring, and in terms of matter holding together, and on down the line in terms of all things as we experience them occurring. These might be what you called ‘ordinary’ miracles, which is an oxymoron.
Here’s an appropriate cite: ” 2in these last days [God] has spoken to us in His Son [Jesus Christ], whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power” Hebrews 1:2-3. Now, that is miraculous.
3. The idea that a miracle is something that transcends some sort of laws of nature is not a strictly Biblical concept. — The NT speaks of ‘signs’ performed by Jesus and His followers by the power of the Holy Spirit, who is the third person of the triune God. In other words,whether a sign or miracle is an instance when the laws of nature are transcended or not is not essential to the definition of the Bible. However, the signs were certainly unusual and otherwise unexplainable events, but for the testimony of Christ that He performed these signs in order to demonstrate that He was in fact the Son of God. He showed that He was able to control this power of doing amazing things, like healing people and controlling the wind and waves, changing substances and multiplying food, etc. The reasoning behind this proof of His identity was (1) only God or God’s Messiah could do such things, (2) Jesus could do such things, so (3) Jesus proved He was the Son of God.
4. Why is it that only God or His Messiah could do such signs? Well, because no one else had such power. The point is that there was power to do things no on else could do, a power that was ascribed to God alone. Obviously, the Bible does not speak of laws of nature being transcended, per se. The idea that laws of nature are being transcended is a modern interpretation of those events as described in the Bible. What impressed folks was the unusual things Jesus could do at will which no one else could do. I dare say that no one could do these things today, except by some sort of technology. Jesus did not use technology, but a power no one else possessed, a spiritual power. These are what you seem to be calling ‘true’ miracles, even as you search for their essences.
5. You go on to state, “the word simply becomes short hand for an amazing6 coincidence that is of benefit to a person or persons7. It would then seem that our definition of miracle actually stems from our own inability to sufficiently appreciate how probability acts in our lives.”
(A)I would disagree that a miracle has to be beneficial to someone to count as one.
(B)Your interpretation that a miracle is amazing is accurate, in that a miracle is a sign that creates the subjective response of amazement, since it is impossible to see how the act was done by any means we are ordinarily familiar with, pointing us toward the true cause: God.
(C) Your interpretation that a miracle is a ‘coincidence’ is a value-laden term which presumes there is no act of God involved. It uses an example like the landing ofthe plane as a red herring. Clearly, the landing of the plane was doable, if difficult. A human did in fact land the plane. If God intervened, it is not manifest that he was involved in a special act of intervention (what you might call a ‘true’ miracle). God’s ‘hand’ in it was not manifest except circumstantially.
But get this surprising argument from a Born Again Christian like myself who believes the universe is likely around 6k years old, created by God just as Genesis plainly describes it:
You and I could both watch Jesus turn water to wine, heal the lame man we’ve known since his birth, or raise Lazarus from the dead, and each of us could have different interpretations of what we just observed. I would call it a miracle, an act of God thru His Son, by His Spirit. You might call it an unexplained phenomenon.
You will note that the Jewish leadership who sent Jesus to Pilot demanding his execution were quite aware of the signs Jesus performed. They knew they were extraordinary and unexplainable, but they chose not to recognize Him as the Son of God. They would not knowingly execute the Messiah.
The point is that a miracle may be an objective reality as an act of God (whether it was ordinary or extraordinary in the expectatons of humans watching), but yet be considered a non-miracle by anyone observing.
Accordingly, the plane landing was amazing, and it would not surprise me if God intervened in various and several ways at that time. But I have no information upon which to base a conclusion one way or another as to whether God specially intervened there. But I believe He was sustaining all matter by the word of His power. Heb 1.
6. The final point is that philosophers have desired a defn of miracles for a long, long time, so they could manipulate the concept by reasonin over that defn. All I can say is that any attempt to secularize the defn by removing the requirement that it be an act of the almighty destroys the meaning of the term. Since scientism and naturalism needs to PRESUME no God in searching for causes, by defn it hsa PRESUMED there are no miracles, just as you imported the term ‘coincidence’ into your analysis of the plane landing.
God bless you, friend. TW
A very expansive comment, I thank-you for the effort.
I’m not currently free to give it the reply it deserves, perhaps tomorrow if you will forgive the delay.
I would make one point right now though, you make the assertion that the term “coincidence” is value laden, I would disagree. The term merely makes an observation that two events coincide” eg, having a mid-air collision and landing a plane safely. I would suggest that any value assigned to this term is done so by the reader, none was intended beyond an attempt at a descriptive term.
I also incorrectly said you refer to an ‘ordinary’ miracle, when it was really a ‘false’ one.
But fair enough on your intent with the term, ‘coincidence’. Problem is, people who dismiss miracles as not caused by God often assert they are merely a coincidence. For example, I pray for a tow truck, and a moment later one pulls up to my stalled vehicle. Well, that was a coincidence, but what caused the coincidence? Saying it’s a coincidence disproves nothing,but it implies a strong conclusion, that an ordinary explanation proves God was not involved.
That’s really another source of the problem with secularizing the defn. Scripture provides that God works all things to the good of those who love Him, even if they are burned at hte stake. Romans 8:28. And He is not required to overtly violate any so-called laws of nature to do it. Being omnipotent, He can interrupt the space-time continuum and do what He wants when He wants, so one would not notice his Work in a scientifically observable sense in that case.
The only time He would be expected to leave obvious tracks is if he has a sign that needs to be performed to serve His purposes, such as IDing JC.
Now, modern acts of healing by the Spirit by Christians, for example, are miraculous, bythe power the Spirit provides. These healings can be very coincidental with medical treatment going on. But we get excited that God acted in the situation, despite the prayers and actions ofthe Christian who exercisd a gift of healing, when we see something unusual and not easily explained. E.g., tumor on films yesterday, and no tumor on films today, after prayer. Again, we know God is acting to hold space/time/matter together and He created it, so we give thanks for his healing in any event. But we especially appreciate His shows of power, which we call manifestations of the Spirit. any manifesation of the Spirit is, of course, considered by Christisans as miraculous, an act of God, who is a being outside of the so-called laws of nature He created. …. sorry to go on and on, but it’s fascinating to me, and fun to explain a Christian point of view to someone who, from how you’ve approached this, may not be familiar with the Biblical truth.
May the Lord bless you as you seek Him. TW
Yes, that
First off, I should have been more precise in my original explanation of the popular definition of a miracle as an event that is inexplicable with regard to the laws of nature. In popular conception this means that something might be considered to “break” the laws of nature. If fact this is a more technical definition than that, inexplicable events may certainly be in accord with the laws of nature and yet still be difficult to explain simply by appeal to them. So I will grant you that point as you so graciously grant mine with regard to coincidence.
To begin the discussion in earnest then I will tackle first what you wrote last. At the end of your entry you denigrate philosophers attempts to define miracles as mechanisms by which to manipulate it. I would disagree and say that definitions are very important in our world and become even more important when trying to deal with something that is as fraught with multiple meanings as miracles. Definitions provide us with a mental category by which we can evaluate the world around us and assign meaning to events, people and things. Without them we cannot tell one thing from another, especially when we consider miracles.
For example, say I ask you how many “Moogalfloops” you can see from your chair right now. You would want me to define exactly what I mean by that term as otherwise you would have no way to determine the answer. A helpful definition would be if I said that a moogalfloop is something that is small, feathered, has wings and a beak. You would then determine that moogalfloop is another word for bird and then be able to answer the question. An unhelpful definition would be if I said a moogalfloop is whatever I want it to be at any particular time.
Moving forward I’d like to tease out a couple of definitions for miracle that you put forth (one of which may be unintentional I think so forgive me if I put words in your mouth for the sake of argument).
1. A miracle is an act of God.
2. A miracle is that which we find amazing.
The first definition I find troublesome as you further point out that all events might reasonably be traced back as acts of god through his sustaining power. So this once again leaves us unable to tell miracles from non-miracles because we have rendered the concept of “non-miracle” meaningless.
Your second definition (perhaps unintentional) is that miracles are amazing, but by what standard to we determine something to be amazing? Is there a reliable and robust metric of amazingness? Do we move from “not amazing” at one end through “somewhat amazing” and “fairly amazing” to “really amazing”? This might seem flippant but my point is that different people are going to find different events amazing or not depending on their knowledge, personal history and disposition. Does this mean that any particular event can be legitimately both a miracle and not a miracle at the same time? It follows that perhaps an event is a miracle at one point in history but not at another once the mechanism can be explained.
So we arrive back at the need to define the word miracle in such a way as to make it robust enough that we have a criteria by which to determine whether a miracle has occurred independent of any particular person’s personal outlook. It may be that such a definition is impossible, that whatever we come up with would be determined by someone to be either over or under inclusive but I would suggest that it is better to strive for such a definition than to simply assert one without investigating whether it makes sense.
I’d like to thank you again for your comments and for maintaining a civil level of discourse.
Scept, I agree heartily that defns are very important. I think you interpreted my statement about what philosophers do (and I have a ba and 20 odd hours of post grad in philosophy)as a criticism, as if they are wrong to seek defns. What I meant is that as they do what they do, they need to be careful they do not presuppose the answer they seek in the way they define the term.
They want to know if miracles occur and if they make sense. They generally reason that a miracle is a phenomenon, and Christians concur.
Then, they, and most scientfically minded folk, leap to the conclusion that a phenomenon, if it is one, must subscribe to certain ‘laws of nature.’ (I know that a lot of philosophy of science goes beyond the concept of a ‘law’ of nature these days. But those meta-theories make the same presupposition I am about to explicate a bit.)
The presupposition is that all phenomena have a cause, and that cause is ‘natural.’ The term, ‘natural’, is where we get into trouble, of course. Something is not natural to most scientifically minded people if it cannot (at least in theory) be observed and measured and explained as having a cause … [here it is] … apart from a supernatural one, one that is beyond nature. Some call this “metaphysical naturalism”: (Wikipedia) Naturalism is the metaphysical position that “nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature.”
This metaphysical postulate is really rooted in the need of people to want to be able to ‘manipulate’ or use reliable information or knowledge. Nothing wrong with that, so long as we comprehend that we are being specialized for a particular purpose.
In order to serve that particular purpose, in science we get what Wikipedia describes as “Methodological naturalism (or scientific naturalism) … It requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events. Explanations of observable effects are considered to be practical and useful only when they hypothesize natural causes (i.e., specific mechanisms, not indeterminate miracles). Methodological naturalism is the principle underlying all of modern science.”
For this reasons, scientists get edgy when a religious bloke says the plane landing in question was a miracle, i.e., an act of his God. They say, ‘prove it,’ knowing full well the guy cannot prove it was a miracle, and that the balance of scientific evidence would show that the pilot just used great skill, strategy and calm water to do the job. Thus, from the scientist’s view, the religious bloke is making a categorical mistake. He’s applying his faith, which is not based on scientific method and presuppositions, to a phenomenon, and science claims ownership over all phenomena. Period.
So, they then turn and scientifically analyze his belief in the plane landing as a miracle, and they conclude that the bloke has suspended his evaluation of the scientifically verifiable data and instead appealed to his own presuppositions about his God, attributing causality to this beyond nature being without scientific reasons to do so. The scientist concludes that, by defn, the religious person, his thinking, and his conclusion, are not only unscientific, but irrelevant, irrational, and worst of all, out of touch with reality. What reality? The metaphysical reality that there is no God, he does not influence phenomena, and all there is is nature. Indeed, if there were a god, he’d only be a natural being, by defn, regardless of his powers.
And that is precisely what exclusive application of the scientific method/mindset does to all phenomena and all ideas: It naturalizes them.
I must say this is less a complaint than it is an observation. A realistic observation. My point is all scientists and all thinkers need to figure out how they are going to approach competing conceptions of metaphysical reality, such as Christianity. (Christianity competes not with the idea of doing science well, but with the idea of doing metaphysics or ontology poorly, such that one uses mere presuppositions to try to exclude a level of reality that science cannot detect and use for its narrow purposes.) Simply relying on naturalism as a postulate is lame, my friend, not that I am accusing you of doing that. Scientists love the scientific method, and their reliance on it and their interest in what they can gain through it has made them very narrow in their perspective. If you just think scientifically, how can you enjoy art, romance, sports, comedy (like yours!), family, friends, and so many other aspects of life? You can’t. And when science analyzes romance, for example, you learn a lot, about the body and human behavior. Great, but science can’t touch what a relationship is really all about.
In the same way, but more so, science really can’t touch what a relationship with God is really all about.
So, here’s a couple of summary points:
1. Science is useful and important, and has allowed us to have technology and lots of great things.
2. Science requires the use of certain postulates in order to function appropriately within a given environment. We know that sub-atomic environments, for example, defy some of our presuppositions about macro environments, etc. Science seeks to discover and understand and prove what the rules are for a given environment. Science (personifying the method now as a living body of knowledge) has discovered that the so-called universe is full of all sorts of phenomena it can spend a long, long time investigating using its methods. All of this focus on methods and discoveries of the law-like structure underlying all phenomena makes science awful proud of itself—so much so that it thinks it can explain everything, and that its type of explanation is superior to all other sorts, specifically because science helps us learn how to MANIPULATE our environment.
3. Yes, many scientifically minded people are arrogant and look down at all other ways of interpreting reality. But the greater problem is just that science is the great naturalizer. In its quest to reduce all things to what it can analyze and use, applying its presuppositional tools to them, it often misses one or even many layers of reality.
4. Ironically, the complaint that faith is ‘blind’ applies to metaphysical naturalism and scientism (the view that the only way to get at truth is via science), the twin blindnesses of our age. These ideolgoical mindsets blindly accept their presuppositions and fiercely defend them against all comers. Their proponents ridicule, demean, ,make ad hominem attacks against and generally seek to marginalize all who suggest their presuppositions are not the truth. Do all scientists or naturalists do that? No, but many. And this is not just a complaint about the socially bad behavior. I’m saying that this attitude makes many scientists and naturalists unable to see the forest for the trees.
5. Thus, when we come to the concept of a miracle, I have no idea why a scientist or naturalist would want to talk about it, unless they just want to try to rub it in about how stupid they think religious folk are. They have presupposed in their defn of a miracle that there can be no miracles in their system of thought. Moreover, even if they let us have our God caused phenomenon defn of a miracle, they can a priori dimiss it as impossible by defn, because all smart people already know that all metaphysical reality is natural. They regard a god as the equivalent as a yetti or loch ness monster or such: a legendary figure for which there is no scientific basis to believe it did or does exist, other than human testimonies, which call all be explained away as being based on poor scientific inquiry or just human frailties (emotion, superstition, etc.).
6. So, because naturalism and scientism rule in the minds of most moderns, they have no use for a thing called a miracle, and it is for them, as you say, simply a subjective experience of thinking something was amazing. But I was not saying that the essential defn of a miracle from a Christian standpoint requires that it be perceived as amazing. Our idea of a miracle is an act of God which manifests in human perception, either directly or indirectly (like when I see a naturalist become a Christian – I must conclude God acted in his heart to relieve his blindness.
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 1 Corinthians 2:14.
3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 2 Corinthians 4:3-4.
To be a miracle, it need not be directly perceived, but it must objectively be an act of God and it must be revealed to a human. That revelation may or may not lend itslef to scientific inquiry.
Thanks for the discussion. God Bless. TW
And thank you too,
It has been very illuminating to me.
Wait, though, I did not address your fundamental question:
You ask how we can know a true miracle from a false one.
First, in the end times, the antichrist will run around performing false miracles. These are amazing acts that are performed via the spiritual power Satan has been allowed by God to possess. I can give cites if someone wants them.
The only thing that makes these false miracles is that they may at first sight appear to be acts of God, but they are not. They are acts of the evil one.
A true miracle is one tha tis an act of God.
So, how do you tell the difference?
1. Note that the difference does not adhere in whether a reasonable explanation or the laws of nature can be attributed to the situation.
2. The difference must be spiritually discerned.
3. Jesus says false prophets of the end times will be known by their ‘fruits’, which is their words, actions and what they cause to happen in the world. though Satan likes to quote scripture, he perverts it. Where he differs with the Scriptural account of Christ and what He is about, you will know His works, including his signs or miracles, are not of God.
4. So far as the ordinary sense of knowing when a phenomenon is an intervention of God in the ordinary affairs of His creation or simply happenstance, assuming an act of Satan is not in the running here, the only way to tell is if it is a ‘special intervention’ is (a) spiritual discernment or (b) direct revelation of the origin of the act.
Direct revelation is God saying so, like Jesus saying so when he did miracles.
spiritual discernment is, among other things, taking stock of the fact that people prayed, the miracle was ‘amazing’, the chronology of events, its consistency with how God generally works in prayer, it’s biblical, etc. In the end, however, spritual discernment is a spiritual sensitivity that only those who have the indwelling of the Spirit possess.
Obviously, one can see why the scientific method is getting left in the dust here.
Unless you have another point or question, i guess I’m done here. TW
I think that covers it, thanks.