Can one rationally acknowledge miracles?

Thomas

So it goes ...
Veteran Member
Messages
14,917
Reaction score
4,625
Points
108
Location
London UK
This is based on a short essay by Andrew Pinsent, formerly a particle physicist at CERN, the Research Director of the Ian Ramsey Centre at Oxford University and a Roman Catholic priest in the diocese of Arundel and Brighton in England.

+++

It is not irrational to believe in miracles because they purportedly break the "laws of nature."

Our view of nature was once governed by the Aristotelian model that determined what was, and what was not, naturally possible. This gave way to the Newtonian model, and it is this model which insists on 'natural Law' as being a kind of hard-wired structure to the cosmos. The over-arching model was the empirical system by which everything can be measured and monitored, classified and categorised, and as a result of which a tendency to compartmentalisation and determination. Einstein and Dirac, the bomb, relativity and the emergence of Quantum Physics have, for the moment at least, rendered the cosmos as something other than a vast, fixed mechanism. Contemporary science suggests a more 'organic' cosmos, to allow such phenomena as spontaneity, 'spooky action at a distance' and quantum entanglement. All things designated as 'impossible' under the Newtonian model.

Belief in the Divine adds another layer to the mix. By it's very nature, according to every metaphysical model of the ancient religion traditions, as well as Western Philosophical tradition, the Divine is not constrained by and transcends physical conditions. Pantheistic beliefs may be the only exception to this statement, but then pantheism cannot offer an explanation that renders an essentially conditional deity as a product of nature, rather nature is the product of the deity, in that we must allow for non-existence being a divine attribute. Factoring in the multiverse only exacerbates the problem.

The assumption that the Divine 'suspends' or 'contradicts' natural law is, I suggest, a wrong assumption. Rather, the Divine can work through the law, that is work the laws, to achieve Its own will within its created matrix. Remember that the laws are constructs derived from the observation of phenomena, so we know them from the outside, as it were. Gravity, time, space, thermodynamics, etc., all possess a degree of mystery, and there is no reason to assume that the natural laws are entirely within our whit to comprehend them. They are not beyond our capacity to model, of course, but we should not assume that because we can model them, we 'know' them.

In 1767 William Adams remarked: "There must be an ordinary regular course of nature, before there can be anything extraordinary. A river must flow, before its stream can be interrupted." In other words, for an extraordinary event to be properly 'miraculous', exceeding the productive power of nature, there must a robust regularity of nature in the first place, a basic assumption of science.

In the Resurrection narrative, when 'doubting Thomas' is invited to touch the risen Christ (John 20:24–29), we can safely assume Thomas understood that the crucified do not come back to life. Likewise with the miracle accounts presented in the New Testament. John calls them 'signs', which is itself significant, but the point is the sacred scribe was well aware of metaphor and analogy, and of hyperbole — as was Jesus Himself, as his parable of the mustard seed evidently demonstrates (Matthew 13:31–32), Mark 4:30–32, Luke 13:18–19 and Gospel of Thomas logion 20) — and the presentation of the miracle accounts are not couched in the same terms.

An argument that exclude miracles, dependent upon appeals to the laws of nature, have serious implications for human freedom.

A ball is falling through the air. It will follow a path that is more or less predictable by the law of gravitation. If, however, I reach out and catch the ball, have I made a freely chosen intervention? If so, if I can intervene and change things within the laws of nature, why cannot that which transcends those laws intervene in a transcendent manner? If one accepts the idea of the Divine, why should divine intervention be excluded?

An argument that insists that divine intervention is ruled out by the laws of nature, will inevitably go on to argue that the apparent free actions of man, that freedom as such, is actually nothing of the kind, but the product me of those same blind, unthinking forces of nature.

In my opinion, we should be cautious in embracing such nihilistic conclusions which, in extremis, undermine the human values we cling to as meaningful and worthwhile.
 
I buy most of the argument of the good Father researcher... That we don't know the workings... But if we discover a way to do that the laws I'd nature can be changed...that just makes the miraculous natural. Just as nothing in nature changed as science's understanding changed... Only our understanding of nature, physics, science changed... Not the laws themselves...our earlier assumptions, postulates, axioms were revised to keep up with our understanding.....good stuff
A ball is falling through the air. It will follow a path that is more or less predictable by the law of gravitation. If, however, I reach out and catch the ball, have I made a freely chosen intervention? If so, if I can intervene and change things within the laws of nature, why cannot that which transcends those laws intervene in a transcendent manner? If one accepts the idea of the Divine, why should divine intervention be excluded?
what?? Interupted any law of nature? Not...the law of gravity includes.that something is free to fall along the designed path until something else interrupts this... Your hand reaching out clearly interrupted it.

This is not an explanation of how miracles work, but how magicians work. When i am performing magic, I rely heavily on your knowledge of how nature, solids, gravity works in order to trick you into thinking you are seeing something when you are not.
 
I buy most of the argument of the good Father researcher...
OK.

But if we discover a way to do that the laws I'd nature can be changed...that just makes the miraculous natural.
Yes it does. But I doubt we will, and there's certainly no suggestion that such understanding will be forthcoming, so I don't think that 'but' carries any weight.

...the law of gravity includes.that something is free to fall along the designed path until something else interrupts this... Your hand reaching out clearly interrupted it.
Quite ... that was rather the point. If I can ... why cannot God?

This is not an explanation of how miracles work, but how magicians work.
Well then you'll have to prove that miracles are in fact practiced deceptions ...
 
Quite ... that was rather the point. If I can ... why cannot God?
OK... I am saying what you did was within the laws of gravity... Not a miracle.

Now if it stopped midair without any visible means... It would be a miracle...until we identified the means...

Just like our doctors ...people are brought back from the dead every day..
 
Just like our doctors ...people are brought back from the dead every day..

I think you're stretching things by asserting that doctors bring people back from the dead every day. People who lack 'vital signs' such as heart action or respiratory movements can sometimes be medically resuscitated, but such individuals aren't dead. They might better be described as inert.

I fully agree with the proposition that if , for example, a man was shown to be able to walk on water without any kind of buoyancy apparatus to prevent his sinking beneath it, that would not be a miracle, rather a natural occurrence for which a natural explanation was yet to be adduced, and surely could be, and would be.
 
This is based on a short essay by Andrew Pinsent, formerly a particle physicist at CERN, the Research Director of the Ian Ramsey Centre at Oxford University and a Roman Catholic priest in the diocese of Arundel and Brighton in England.

Excellent!

Contemporary science suggests a more 'organic' cosmos, to allow such phenomena as spontaneity, 'spooky action at a distance' and quantum entanglement. All things designated as 'impossible' under the Newtonian model.

The piece that still enthralls me considering the possibilities...is neutrinos. Add all of these together (especially quantum entanglement, spooky action at a distance, and neutrinos) and a lot of paranormal activity begins to make some degree of sense.

Pantheistic beliefs may be the only exception to this statement, but then pantheism cannot offer an explanation that renders an essentially conditional deity as a product of nature, rather nature is the product of the deity, in that we must allow for non-existence being a divine attribute. Factoring in the multiverse only exacerbates the problem.
Not fully certain where he's going with this, and it is entirely possible I am confusing in my mind with animism, which decidedly does not "create" a conditional deity. I suspect now he is referring to the standard Pagan pantheon of Greece and Rome and others of the region, in which case I believe I see the point.

The assumption that the Divine 'suspends' or 'contradicts' natural law is, I suggest, a wrong assumption. Rather, the Divine can work through the law, that is work the laws, to achieve Its own will within its created matrix. Remember that the laws are constructs derived from the observation of phenomena, so we know them from the outside, as it were. Gravity, time, space, thermodynamics, etc., all possess a degree of mystery, and there is no reason to assume that the natural laws are entirely within our whit to comprehend them. They are not beyond our capacity to model, of course, but we should not assume that because we can model them, we 'know' them.
Hallelujah! Preachin' to the choir! (emphasis mine, -jt3)

Factoring in the multiverse only exacerbates the problem.
I would only add that on this part I still hold great reservations. Looks good on paper, but we have no way to prove the multiverse even exists.
 
Last edited:
Having had a little while to consider this subject, how alike or different are miracles and magic?

Seems to me all religions are imbued with some degree of magic. Christians have walking on water, turning water to wine, and resurrecting the dead...among others. Judaism has the sacred name, which is said to even be able to animate a lump of clay. Buddhist adepts have been said to be able to transfer the spirit from one body to another.

I have met at least two different adepts of far different disciplines who could read minds and see into hearts, and "predict" certain aspects of a person's life. The cynic would scoff, as would I, except I was the guinea pig. Magic is the stock in trade of some faiths directly, while others dance around the subject, uncomfortable with the ramifications.

I fail to see how anyone could be an adept of more than one discipline, for certainly it requires a deep, deep commitment to any one particular faith. So which came first, the magic or the magician?

I find myself at a little bit of a crossroads...how important is magic? How important is the magic in our specific faith walk? Is it in any way crucial to be fluent in the magic of our faith walk?

Or is the magic merely a sales pitch to help sell the particular brand of faith?

Can I get to heaven without practicing the magic of my faith?

I believe I can, but that too requires a deep commitment.
 
Not fully certain where he's going with this, and it is entirely possible I am confusing in my mind with animism, which decidedly does not "create" a conditional deity. I suspect now he is referring to the standard Pagan pantheon of Greece and Rome and others of the region, in which case I believe I see the point.
From Wikipedia:
Pantheism is the belief that all reality is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god. Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god
I wouldn't say that pantheism is similar to either animism or a pantheon.
 
Having had a little while to consider this subject, how alike or different are miracles and magic?
Obviously in a lot of ways they're alike.

I'd say one talking point of distinction is that 'magic' points to the power of the individual magician. The magic s/he performs is a matter of his/her knowledge and power. Even the harnessing of spirits, which in themselves might well be more powerful entities than the magician, is achieved by some form of control over the spirit maintained by the magician — such as Prospero's relationship with Ariel in The Tempest.

A miracle, on the other hand, and I'm speaking of miracle in the religious sense, points to a higher power. The disciples performed miracles, we are told, but they were not magicians. The prophets likewise.

Miracles are not gratuitous displays of power. The Synoptics refer to 'miracles' but St John calls them 'signs' and I think this is far more telling. The miracles are contextual, and they are symbolic in they realise something that cannot be presented in material terms. Christ's walking on the water, or calming the waves, his feeding of the multitudes, healing the sick, even raising the dead, are not simply performed because He can, nor quite simply performed to awe His audience, although there is an element of this, human nature being what it is, the intellectual argument is not enough to win the hearts and minds of men and even those who witnessed the miracles could, and in some cases did, fall away in their faith.
 
Or is the magic the whole point of religion to begin with?
I'd say the point of religion is to participate in the Divine Life.

Thus there is no strict need to practice a religion to get to heaven, but there is a need to practice if one wants to participate in the here-and-now.
 
But magic is trickery and deception... People paid to lie and confuse, to utilize existing knowledge and perception to make one think something that is incorrect.
 
Don't forget to expand your perspective, kids!

Definition of magic
  1. a : the use of means (such as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forcesb : magic rites or incantations

  2. a : an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source Both pitchers, although they are older, haven't lost their magic.b : something that seems to cast a spell : enchantment all the mystery, magic and romance which belong to royalty alone — J. E. P. Grigg

  3. : the art of producing illusions by sleight of hand entertained with acts of jugglery and magic
 
Perhaps it behooves me to explain what I meant by the term "magic," because it was not in any way intended from me to mean any sort of chicanery or deceit. I guess in many ways I am ignorant, I certainly practice no form of magic, black or white. But there are those that do, in sufficient numbers to believe there may be some underlying merit to the practice.

I think Thomas was mostly onto something, in that while the "mechanics" seem to me largely the same the motivations often are not. What is termed "miracle" seems to me magic for selfless reasons, whereas "magic" is a miracle for selfish reasons. Glib, trite and overly simplistic, but the best I could do on short notice.

It still remains though, that miracles / magic done in and for religion often perform the function of advertising for the faith.
 
I'd say the point of religion is to participate in the Divine Life.

Thus there is no strict need to practice a religion to get to heaven, but there is a need to practice if one wants to participate in the here-and-now.
Not sure I understand. Could you elaborate a little? Can I not practice my faith and never step foot in any sanctuary built by humans?
 
It still remains though, that miracles / magic done in and for religion often perform the function of advertising for the faith.
I have yet to see any magic done in and for religion.
Can I not practice my faith and never step foot in any sanctuary built by humans?
short answer I'd say OF COURSE... And then I would consider anytime I pray or meditate I am in a sanctuary built by my prayer and/or meditation.
 
short answer I'd say OF COURSE... And then I would consider anytime I pray or meditate I am in a sanctuary built by my prayer and/or meditation.
But then you've appropriated elements and learning of a Tradition for your own use – 'pray', 'meditate' and 'sanctuary' would not be in your experience or lexicon if you had not received them.

So I agree with the idea, but the risk here is the 'depth' of engagement is dependent upon your capacity to see clearly, whereas under the cover of a tradition this inevitable human myopia is accounted for. Thus, for example, one does not have to understand the Eucharist to be in receipt of its grace, simply one has to accept it, but if the acceptance is not there, then the grace is not received.
 
Back
Top