Exploring miracles
I've been pondering the definition of a miracle, since miracles were the topic of this past Thursday's study.
A miracle is something that can't be explained through natural phenomena. That is, it's God intervening in the workings of the world to affect change. That's not to say that some of God's interventions can't be explained by natural phenomena... they just can't be identified and described as miracles so easily.
What about a miracle that isn't clear-cut; how does one determine if it's a miracle?
Given a certain scenario, a Christian might say it is obviously/clearly/undeniably a miracle. Yet a non-believer might say it's not unreasonable or unexplainable through natural phenomena. Who is right and who is wrong?
If it truly is undeniably a miracle, it should be lunacy to claim otherwise. But when someone ascribes the miracle to natural phenomena, we don't call that person crazy and require them to get professional help for their delusion. Hence, that means that we don't honestly think it's lunacy and irrefutable as was claimed, so there's a good chance that the miracle really is nothing more than a fluke.
Statistically, it's possible for all sorts of things to happen. If someone survives falling off a 100' cliff, is it a miracle? It might seem so. But if 10,000 people are tossed over for research's sake, will all 10,000 die? How about 1,000,000 people? It seems plainly obvious that out of a million people falling 100', there would be at least one survivor through natural phenomena without any tampering by God. So when we look at the individual case of a person surviving, it would be irresponsible to attribute it to miraculous circumstance.
The odds of being struck by lightning in a given year are about 1:240,000. Yet 100 people per year get struck every year. (source) It's a rare natural phenomena, but it does happen. So why should any unlikely "miraculous" occurrence *ever* be attributed as a miracle? It seems like people see what they want to see when they don't fully understand a situation. It would be more reasonable to either accept the lack of information stoically, or work towards obtaining a better understanding of the world to determine if it can (or cannot) be explained. It is premature and flighty to assume it's a miracle.
But why aren't there clear-cut miracles? A clear-cut miracle would be absolute proof that God exists. Some think that irrefutable evidence of God would do away with free will and the choice to believe, so a clear-cut miracle can't exist. Of course that messes up this entire argument. If true, it's impossible to have proof that God exists. How deceptive and insidious of God. (That was sarcasm in case you missed it.)
I certainly haven't covered all the bases, and gave this article a certain 'science' spin to it. So let me know where I'm out of my gourd. Your input is most welcome. Comment away! :)
Visitors