The other day I heard a philosophy professor from the local (highly-regarded) U discussing, on radio, the concept of miracles. I didn’t hear the whole thing, or always listen closely, but I’m reasonably sure his primary focus was that too many people view the topic too loosely, i.e., without applying critical reasoning. He said that made him uncomfortable in the same way that poor eating makes a nutritionist uncomfortable -- it’s simply not a healthy way to be. And he implied that ultimately there are no miracles, only phenomena waiting to be explained. And that this had major implications for most if not all religions
I’m not a university professor, but I was an undergraduate philosophy major, in law school I honed my critical thinking skills, and I’ve been on many revolutions around the sun, during which, like everyone else of a certain age, I gathered experience and ideas like a whale gathers barnacles, so I feel reasonably comfortable in responding.
I sort of get his point. It happens all too often (to a philosopher for sure and probably for most thinking folks) that many people take the easy way out when faced with the apparently inexplicable -- they stop there and simply say it’s a miracle (meaning something not in accord with known reality) and from that they posit there must be a moving force behind it, e.g. some sort of divine being. The problem of course is stopping too soon, without making further rational inquiry. To argue that the inexplicable is proof of God is not inevitably wrong, but it is logically flawed, in that it makes God subject to the limits of our knowledge of the universe -- meaning that if a supposed miracle is later explained, it removes God from the equation.
I get that. But he went on to conclude that there likely are no miracles because every supposed miracle can likely be explained or otherwise refuted. And he concluded that while it’s certainly okay with him that people believe in a Supreme Being, but without miracles it’s equally okay to believe there is no Supreme Being. That miracles are the only way we could prove God’s existence, and without them, we can only presume.
Fine with me. I firmly believe that the universe operates outside and beyond my reasoning and my preferences. I think I know that from within, and I don’t need logical proof of that. I further believe -- maybe even reason -- that God, if He exists and by definition, does not rely on our logical approval for His existence. #paperbackwriter and other Christians can correct or affirm me on this, but I think the Christian Bible puts faith in the unknowable high up there, maybe as the highest virtue. Einstein once famously said that God doesn’t play dice with the universe, but I would also advocate that God could play dice if He chose to -- or that what we see as “playing dice” is a divine pattern or purpose we don’t understand and maybe never will.
Moreover, I’m not convinced that being able to explain a phenomenon removes it from the realm of divine intervention. I remember years ago visiting the bluffs and canyons of western Nebraska, and hiking up one in the company of a pair of nuns (I have no idea anymore of how we ended up together). We were talking about the beauty of the landscape and I mentioned the geological history of it, how science says it came to be. One of the nuns looked at me and said, “Oh, I just think that God did it.” As though that ended the discussion. My response, of which I am still proud, was simply that, “Well, if He did it, that’s how He did it.”
Then and now I suggest that is the simple resolution of the discussion. Explaining the mechanics of a miracle does not diminish it, it enhances it. And presuming that human knowledge of God (inherently unknowable) is a prerequisite for His existence is logical nonsense.
IMHO.
Comments
Sort Comments By