The Nature of Miracles

David Conner · May 10, 2007

If a tree springs up from the ground in thirty seconds, we would certainly see it as a miracle. If that same tree springs up from the ground in thirty years, we might be inclined to think of it as "nature." But the only real difference between these two scenarios is time. Because we are used to the latter time frame, it is easy to overlook the miracle in every tree, healed wound, or reconciliation. I do not say this to in any way minimize the mystery of miracles, but rather to remind us that the mystery of God's activity is manifested in all things at all times. Every miracle performed by Jesus, the Son, was a familiar action of God, the Father, with the timing altered so that we, the Children might perceive it.

I anticipate that some one might object: "What about the 'loaves and fishes' miracle? Was that not a spontaneous creation of new matter?" The answer is "No." It was the reorganization of matter that God had originally created. It had been reorganized before that miracle and has been reorganized again since then. Fish continue to make more fish out of things that were previously not fish, and wheat continues to make more wheat according to the same laws that God set forth at the beginning of physical creation. The only factor that had to be altered was time.

Another possible objection might arise when we consider the miracles in which Jesus resurrected the dead. To answer this question, we can again look to both the past and the future. The principles are essentially no different than with the loaves and fishes miracles (there were two such events). God is continuously feeding inanimate matter into biological life cycles, thereby giving life to dead things. But this explanation does not account for the restoration of a personality. To account for this we look, not to history, but to the future. God has assured us, through his word, that we will all be brought back to life, with our individual personalities, for further processing toward his ultimate purposes. Therefore, we are again looking at manipulations of time. Resurrections are simply precedents of a wholesale future phenomenon.

With my conclusion I want to say that, especially in the latter part of this piece, I am presenting a concept that is still, as far as I am concerned, in a mallable form. I have been reading excerpts from the works of George Mcdonald, prepared by C.S. Lewis. I am finding this material to be quite compelling. I am open to feedback, which is fortunate because something tells me I will surely get it.

Everlasting · May 10, 2007

That is very true. With all of the signs and wonders that surround us, most are not recognized or mentioned as such. A sign is a reflection/imitation of a observable object, while a miracle sets itself apart from the norm, and bears solid witness to a thing which cannot be explained, or is different. Time can turn signs into miracles, but then time can also turn miracles into signs. We evolve, we digress, we stumble, we recover. God's love holds us in the palm of his hand.

Everlasting,
Moon Over Key Biscayne

http://www.booksandmore.4t.com

:Hug2:

ISBN: 1-4241-6884-8

Julie Worth · May 10, 2007

David Conner said:
...Every miracle performed by Jesus, the Son, was a familiar action of God, the Father, with the timing altered so that we, the Children might perceive it.

I can't agree. The word "miracle" is used according to some perceived degree of improbability. Raising someone from the dead was a miracle 2000 years ago, but might not be today. And that has nothing to do with timing, except for when it happened.

David Conner · May 10, 2007

I can't agree. The word "miracle" is used according to some perceived degree of improbability. Raising someone from the dead was a miracle 2000 years ago, but might not be today. And that has nothing to do with timing, except for when it happened.

I'm not clear on how we disagree. Your response presents nothing that I disagree with, except, perhapse the bit about resurrecting the dead. The Bible said that Lazarus "stinketh". To date, science has not figured out how to revive such cases. That would be a miracle at any rate.

As far as miracles being defined in terms of improbability, the chances of any given sperm fertilizing any given egg and resulting in the production of an individual human being are astronomically improbable. But such "miracles" occur thousands of times a day. I don't see where we disagree here.

Julie Worth · May 10, 2007

David Conner said:
I'm not clear on how we disagree. Your response presents nothing that I disagree with, except, perhapse the bit about resurrecting the dead. The Bible said that Lazarus "stinketh". To date, science has not figured out how to revive such cases. That would be a miracle at any rate.

As far as miracles being defined in terms of improbability, the chances of any given sperm fertilizing any given egg and resulting in the production of an individual human being are astronomically improbable. But such "miracles" occur thousands of times a day. I don't see where we disagree here.

I disagree with your statement that "every miracle ...was a familiar action of God...with the timing altered..." Which obviously isn't the case, Lazarus being just one example. Where was the timing in that case?

Your example of "any given sperm fertilizing any given egg and resulting in the production of an individual human being are astronomically improbable," is also flawed. This does not occur "thousands of times a day." If you were to bet on a given sperm fertilizing an egg, your odds would be more than a hundred million to one. It would happen about once every year and a half. Not a miracle, just statistics.

small axe · May 11, 2007

Well, God might be said to bring "dead" matter (whether minerals or chemicals or Lazarus' dead corpse) to "life" ...

If one wished to challenge the "miracle" of Lazarus returning from the dead, they'd need to know exactly what death is, and exactly what life is. Was it the same "soul" of the same Lazarus, for instance?

Was the "science" of 30 A.D. (which is what the Scripture would be speaking about) able to pass a judgement "Lazarus is dead" that we can now accept as proven (according to the science of 2007)?

I'd debate whether any 'miracle' must necessarily violate the laws of accepted quantum theory. Some people think a 'miracle' has to be impossible by natural law, others accept that the God who created and sustains natural law has now need to violate it.

Not a miracle, just statistics.

Exactly. But we could attribute the entire Universe/Creation to exactly the same thing, couldn't we?

God enacting Divine Willl = 'not a miracle, just statistics'

Julie Worth · May 11, 2007

small axe said:
I'd debate whether any 'miracle' must necessarily violate the laws of accepted quantum theory.

Miracles happen all the time in quantum physics. Particles in two places at once, a cat both alive and dead. If those aren't miracles, what are?

small axe · May 11, 2007

Julie Worth said:
Miracles happen all the time in quantum physics. Particles in two places at once, a cat both alive and dead. If those aren't miracles, what are?

I agree. The day-to-day (well, moment to moment) functioning of a Universe (and there is the Multiverse to consider, too) might in itself be a Miracle, in which the thinking miracles (us) ponder the meaning (even the existence) of the sub-miracles of Scripture.

Plot Device · May 11, 2007

My theology professor categorized miracles into two groups:

Type "A" Miracles: These involve first rate, bona fide instances of God causing the laws of nature/physics to be temporarilly subverted (the Red Sea parts; Jesus walks on water; the sun stands still for Joshua; etc).

Type "B" Miracles: These involve the improbably convenient/fortuitous timings of otherwise normal occurances (your houses catches fire and a sudden downpour extinguishes it; you're running late and so you miss your morning train, and then that train gets derailed, killing all on board; you arrive at work at 9:00 AM, get fired at 9:15 AM, and are escorted out of the building by security guards at 9:30 AM, and then the building is blown up by terrorists at 9:45 AM; etc).

AzBobby · May 12, 2007

Plot Device said:
My theology professor categorized miracles into two groups:

Type "A" Miracles: These involve first rate, bona fide instances of God causing the laws of nature/physics to be temporarilly subverted (the Red Sea parts; Jesus walks on water; the sun stands still for Joshua; etc).

Type "B" Miracles: These involve the improbably convenient/fortuitous timings of otherwise normal occurances (your houses catches fire and a sudden downpour extinguishes it; you're running late and so you miss your morning train, and then that train gets derailed, killing all on board; you arrive at work at 9:00 AM, get fired at 9:15 AM, and are escorted out of the building by security guards at 9:30 AM, and then the building is blown up by terrorists at 9:45 AM; etc).

I've heard this distinction all my life, but I find myself unable to parse miracles logically any more unless I accept the definition of "miracle" as a subjective experience of awe. A person who is well versed in human biology might still regard a birth they witness to be as much of a miracle as the sun dancing in the sky. There's really no hard line drawn between your A and B when you realize that timing, long odds and the reaction of awe apply to them all.

If you remove the subjective appreciation of the awesome event that neither depends on nor is deflated by scientific explanations for the miraculous -- i.e. the strictly spiritual effect -- from the definition of "miracle," then poof! miracles logically disappear from existence.

What I'm saying is that a definition of miracles as events that defy all explanation and rise above all science (even in theory) renders itself inapplicable to any event. That is, if you can prove conclusively that something was impossible, that means it never happened (as far as you can know); yet if you provide conclusive proof to the contrary -- viable explanation to prove it was not impossible -- you're purposely placing the event within the natural order of things. Either way, no miracle, not according to that unworkable definition at least.

Unfortunately, that's a popular standard for discussing miracles, even though it can never make sense in the end. A skeptic might deny any miracle that can be explained, simply on the grounds that it can be explained ("It's no miracle for that statue to appear to weep -- I've spotted the leaky roof above its head, dripping water on it"). Sadly, the believer might well buy into their definition and try desperately to one-up the debunked example with some other one they feel defies explanation. You hear it all the time. "OK, so you found the leaky ceiling -- then how do you explain its eyes moving?" The believer helps outline the miracle on the skeptic's terms: to exist, it must not be explained or still leave some unexplainable portion of the story behind.

Of course, we've had many tales of miracles that left those unexplainable portions of the story behind (and thus kept the arguments going), and those have always been the favorites of believers. That's really too bad. The parting of the Reed Sea couldn't have been half as cool as the conversion of one bitter heart.

AzBobby · May 14, 2007

BTW, I realize this thread wandered off into religious discussion independent of writing -- maybe it was in those backwoods since the OP.

If I may inject a writing related note, the concept of the miracle that is somehow plausible yet draws subjective awe sufficient to call it a "miracle" seems to me to be the most workable kind to include in fiction. The more subjective the consideration of the miracle may be, the less likely the fiction is to be guilty of deus ex machina elements (the god reference being coincidental here).

To conjure a common example, maybe the story is about some kid requiring a life-saving operation that costs a fortune, and the family prays like crazy for the problem to be solved. For the money to flutter down from the sky would strike most readers as absurd, no matter how religious they are. For the family to win the lottery drawing that week would only be slightly less absurd to most readers. If a wealthy character suddenly befriends the family at the end and hands them a sack o' cash just in time, it's not as awful as the lottery solution but awful enough not to make much difference -- most readers would still label it as deus ex machina. However, if the story follows the subplot of the wealthy person re-examining his life while the family's problems build up at the same time, and allows the reader to follow the plausible events leading up to the lucky conclusion, there's a good chance the writing doesn't have to be awful at all. The Christian might close the book saying, "Aha, a miracle was delivered" just as the fictional characters may be saying, while pondering how such things really happen. This seems more inspirational to me than a story climaxing with a form of miracle that allows the reader to say (no matter what his creed) "nice fantasy for some, but that never happens."

Roger J Carlson · May 15, 2007

Thanks, AzBobby.

But I don't think this thread has gone off-topic at all. A discussion about what miracles are or are not is a perfectly valid topic here. A debate about whether miracles exist or are simply figments of religious persons imaginations, would not.

There is a very fine line, and I'm trying to tread carefully. I don't want to impose draconian rules here. That will kill this forum quicker than quick. I just want us to all keep the purpose of this forum uppermost in our minds.

Thanks again.

AzBobby · May 16, 2007

Roger J Carlson said:
A discussion about what miracles are or are not is a perfectly valid topic here. A debate about whether miracles exist or are simply figments of religious persons imaginations, would not.

The difference is debatable, though. What is or is not a miracle is the crux of the argument of whether miracles exist at all. It's not one of those things that divide all religious people from the atheistic. Christians debate this material all the time.

If someone experiences a miracle in real life, they don't require discussion about it in order to define it. It seems there's almost no point in the discussion unless it applies to the words people use, i.e. writing about miracles. I do think this leads to some huge practical differences in fiction style, especially Christian fiction, the way miracles are addressed.

Roger J Carlson · May 16, 2007

Yes. That's why I said it's a fine line. On the other hand, it is entirely possible that someone could come here and use this discussion as a jumping off point to debate the reality of religion or the validity of Christianity itself. That's not going to happen here.

Joe Moore · May 16, 2007

Perhaps a miracle, like art, is in the eye of the beholder. Albert Einstein once said, “There are two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.” I think either way is acceptable, but the latter seems more fulfilling.

Plot Device · May 17, 2007

I think perhaps adddressing the concept of "coincidence" is in order. How do you define a coincidence? And where do you draw the line between an acceptable probability and an astronomical impossibility?

AzBobby · May 17, 2007

Plot Device said:
I think perhaps adddressing the concept of "coincidence" is in order. How do you define a coincidence? And where do you draw the line between an acceptable probability and an astronomical impossibility?

Absolutely speaking, you don't. Relatively speaking, you do. That is, in some sense everything we don't identify as a coincidence (i.e. everything that happens) is coincidental regardless of our point of view. We call something "coincidental" because we notice it with a special appreciation.

I'm assuming by astronomical impossibility you really mean astronomical improbability. Otherwise your question allows a wide middle ground between the choices. The definition of an impossibility is somewhat cut and dry at least in theory.

dobiwon · May 18, 2007

AzBobby said:
Of course, we've had many tales of miracles that left those unexplainable portions of the story behind (and thus kept the arguments going), and those have always been the favorites of believers. That's really too bad. The parting of the Reed Sea couldn't have been half as cool as the conversion of one bitter heart.

This statement I agree with most wholeheartedly. I once heard a discussion of the miracle of the multiplication of loaves and fishes. Was it really a miracle that a few dried fish and small loaves of bread could feed thousands, with basketsfull of excess? At the time, these people would have been used to travelling hours and days on foot, with no chance of finding places to eat during their trip. They probably carried with them bread and dried fish, enough to sustain themselves. If they all opened their pockets and shared everything they had, there would be plenty of food left over. So was the miracle that a few morsals were multiplied, or that thousands of people opened their hearts and pockets to share their very sustinence with others?

small axe · May 18, 2007

So was the miracle that a few morsals were multiplied, or that thousands of people opened their hearts and pockets to share their very sustinence with others?

The first one is what most people (imo) would consider 'a miracle' ...

The second isn't miraculous; it's Marxism: From each according to ability, to each according to need.

One thing 'miracles' shouldn't be, is watered down by _____ (whatever, I won't fill in the blank, the reader can) until they lose their meaning and purpose as miracles.

dobiwon · May 18, 2007

The second isn't miraculous; it's Marxism: From each according to ability, to each according to need.

It's also Christianity.

AzBobby · May 18, 2007

dobiwon said:
This statement I agree with most wholeheartedly. I once heard a discussion of the miracle of the multiplication of loaves and fishes. Was it really a miracle that a few dried fish and small loaves of bread could feed thousands, with basketsfull of excess? At the time, these people would have been used to travelling hours and days on foot, with no chance of finding places to eat during their trip. They probably carried with them bread and dried fish, enough to sustain themselves. If they all opened their pockets and shared everything they had, there would be plenty of food left over. So was the miracle that a few morsals were multiplied, or that thousands of people opened their hearts and pockets to share their very sustinence with others?

This is also one of my favorite examples in the discussion of miracles. It's strictly a theory, but it's a very good one, as it seems unlikely that so many people would travel from home unprepared (while equally likely that some of them had run out of food and were going hungry). The remarkable thing to do in the situation is to begin by passing out an armful of food and have the unquestioning faith that it will work out in the end, without knowing who brought food and who would share it; that's the amazing part. Since it was a perfectly feasible occurence, though amazing, we're not left to argue whether it happened or whether it was in someone's imagination. We're left to debate which we consider more miraculous and in keeping with the function of miracles -- an outpouring of love, or a magic trick. Ironically, I encounter more Christians who find the first option to be the more frustrating or disillusioning of the two.

Julie Worth · May 18, 2007

small axe said:
The second isn't miraculous; it's Marxism...

Though it would be a miracle if Marxism worked.

Roger J Carlson · May 18, 2007

Plot Device said:
I think perhaps adddressing the concept of "coincidence" is in order. How do you define a coincidence? And where do you draw the line between an acceptable probability and an astronomical impossibility?

Part of it lies in what question you ask.

For instance, what is the probability that any one raindrop in a downpour will hit me? Astronomically low. A virtual impossibility. However, if you ask what the probability is that at least one rain drop will hit me and the answer is astronomically high. A virtual certainty.

small axe · May 18, 2007

The second isn't miraculous; it's Marxism: From each according to ability, to each according to need.

dobiwon said:
It's also Christianity.

I'm happy to agree with you there.

But I ask myself, what are the great Miracles of Christianity? I'd point to Christ's Resurrection, Raising the Dead, Forgiving of Sins, conquest of demons, etc ... all of those transcend human nature.

Sharing your food is as worldly (and dare I suggest as godless) as Marxism: I just don't see it as what most folks mean when they speak of 'miracles'

Just my opinion. But I'm always on the watch for attempts to 'water down' Scripture, where Meaning is whittled away with mundane explanations.

I've heard someone suggest (seriously) that you can 'be a Christian' even if you don't believe Jesus ever actually lived ... if you agree with what the "message" says about how to live.

Then you have those who think Jesus 'wasn't medically dead, by modern standards' etc ...

The Mod warned us about drifting too deeply into doctrine, so I won't go on further there. I'd just say: Miracles (imo) can be within Natural Law and still be 'miracles' ... but you probably shouldn't (imo) lose focus of the unique Nature and Meaning of miracles as unique and meaningful events.

AzBobby · May 18, 2007

small axe said:
I just don't see it as what most folks mean when they speak of 'miracles'

Just my opinion. But I'm always on the watch for attempts to 'water down' Scripture, where Meaning is whittled away with mundane explanations.

Just a suggestion: be on the watch for what we label as mundane.

Another irony with miracles is that they were more commonly accepted in the context of the stories in scripture. In scripture, a false prophet or magician might be described in a matter-of-fact way as having performed miracles. There was something more mundane about the word than what most people prefer today. I suppose scripture writers lived in a world in which black magic -- some kind of ungodly miracle -- was taken for granted, but it's equally possible they understood the miracle as a generic part of life, an act of the unexpected that put you in awe of powers beyond yourself, whatever its apparent explanation.

Now we're living in an age in which every other medical or technological advance is labeled a miracle in conversation. It's not usually much of an exaggeration, if compared to what a miracle might have been called throughout most of history. Something mundane about the word is creeping back into daily life.

No, I don't think distinguishing a miracle of God for its special role and purpose above and beyond the mundane facts of what occurs has to be a "watering down" of scripture's meaning. Just my opinion again, I think it's usually the opposite.

The Nature of Miracles

Wake up, my dear. We're home!

What? I have a title?

Wake up, my dear. We're home!

What? I have a title?

memento mori

What? I have a title?

memento mori

A woman said to write like a man.

Ought to be writing instead

Ought to be writing instead

Moderator In Name Only

Ought to be writing instead

Moderator In Name Only

A woman said to write like a man.

Ought to be writing instead

Planning to retire for the 5th time

memento mori

Planning to retire for the 5th time

Ought to be writing instead

What? I have a title?

Moderator In Name Only

memento mori

Ought to be writing instead