Should a "Miracle" Be seen as a mere freak of nature?
A miracle is reported. What is more likely? That it happened? That our account of it is somehow mistaken? What if we can't know either way? Also your account could give a faith a reason to affirm the miracle, a miracle that is real, and still be wrong. For example, a doctor might not know if the miracle cure patient was given medicine in secret by a friend. Yet the miracle cure could be real. He does not know that so he comes up with the wrong reasons to permit people to think this was a miracle. All accounts have mistakes. All people make mistakes. So the account is not necessarily enough.
What if it were? Maybe the miracle itself was a mistake? If people with cancer x do not get better and somebody does after a prayer maybe that cure is a mistake? A surgeon can slip and still do you a favour. If you admit freak laws of nature happen then you must admit that a miracle report in some way is a mistake. Sometimes you are the freak law of nature yourself.
Potential and real mistakes are too central in the miracle subject.
Bottom line, miracle beliefs are not based on truth, no matter what you say, but on you wanting to believe what somebody has said. PERIOD! It adds to the lying when you go to science to show if there is no obstacle for the religion to declare it a miracle when you don't care about truth or evidence at all.
THERE IS MORE
What is supernatural is done by some agent with magical or supernatural power. If something is natural it just happens. What is natural can be mistaken for the supernatural and vice versa.
A miracle is what is not naturally possible. It is a
supernatural occurrence. It is paranormal. In other words, an event like blood
coming from the eyes of a statue without trickery would be a miracle or a statue
coming to life.
It is possible to believe in miracles without believing statues bleed or come to
life.
Some prefer to believe that miracles are strange but there is no need for them
to be as strange as that! They only take tamer miracles seriously. For many of
them, a miracle is just nature behaving as if God is taking it over to drive
home a point.
Miracles for them are NATURAL acts contrary to the usual workings of natural law
or acts according to some definitions are natural but beyond our understanding
of nature.
An example would be if a boy prays to God and wishes he had a twin brother and
takes ill and they find that he had a twin but who is still a foetus inside his
body and viable if taken out.
The Church says God is all-powerful and he does miracles so that we might learn
his message directly or indirectly from them. They are for teaching the truth
and promoting it. So the message the miracle tells is what matters.
Worrying about the miracle implies you care more about the phone than the phone
call.
Some things that are naturally possible would be classed as miracles. Suppose I
could replicate a typed letter with a pen. That would be possibly natural yes
but it is so hard to do that it amounts to a miracle. If that is possible
it could be that natural forces are making you sure something supernatural
is happening when it in fact is just natural.
Wisdom says:
Do not assume a miracle is supernatural or magic - instead assume that it is
somehow natural though you cannot know how.
If no natural explanation works then assume it is an oddity in nature - a freak
act of nature. Each natural law is not really a law but is a concise way
of speaking of countless natural regularities. You are summing up countless
processes as one law. It is a figure of speech. That is why a claimed or
true miracle would force us to say that we were wrong about some regularity or
how it engages with other ones. It calls for a revision of science for
assuming it is supernatural is of no practical use.
Do not see a miracle as an exception to nature. If natural law in the universe
is that there will be no trees then if a tree appears then is that an exception?
Does the law still stand? No it becomes natural law that
there are no trees but exceptions are possible. So a law is replaced with a new
one.
If you see a miracle as natural and as a coincidence where there should be
almost totally no coincidence then is believing in it anti-nature? But why not
just see it as coincidence? A coincidence and a miracle are not the same thing.
They can work together but you don't need to bring miracle into the equation. So
fusing miracle and coincidence is anti-natural.
Nature acts blind so you are to assume that it is blind and thus that
coincidences are blind. No other assumption is rational. A miraculous
coincidence is blind and purposeless.
Believers say that if a man is dead for days and recovers that we should not
assume that this is a freak of natural law - perhaps because of some anomaly in
the molecular subatomic world. They say we should assume it is a miracle. It is
known that nature can do things that look miraculous but they are not for they
are down to some random failure of matter to work the “normal” way. This seems
to allow atheists and sceptics to argue that they cannot prove there are no
angels on top of the mountain and thus that the angels are possible. But in
fact, nature going awry is an extreme rarity. But if it explains a strange
miracle-like occurrence it is just bias and going too far to say the explanation
is a miracle or the supernatural. And the chance of angels being on the mountain
is so remote that the atheist can regard it as proven that there are not.
Now if nature going bananas is a rarity you cannot look at a convincing miracle
report and say, "It is supernatural. It is not nature going astray for that is
too unlikely." That is stupid - you are refusing to admit that it is a possible
example of nature having gone astray. And the supernatural should be considered
less preferable to a natural explanation. It should be less likely to be correct
than a natural one.
Suppose blood appears on a holy statue. Rather than suppose the freak law of
nature put blood on the statue directly you could assume that it controlled the
witnesses to put it on themselves and misremember their role. That is the most
likely thing to happen for it is more natural to manipulate people's perceptions
than to actually make a statue bleed. The belief that statues do not bleed is
still protected.
Even if you see what on the face of it looks like a supernatural event you
cannot show that natural law could not have made this event seem to happen.
Evidence can only show something happened not what it actually was. You still
have to assume it was in some way natural even if nobody understands how. Nature
is bigger than any human mind no matter how intelligent.
Suppose you define a miracle not as supernatural but as natural in its oddest
form. If you see what on the face of it looks like a freak law of nature being
controlled by God to do a miracle you cannot show that natural law could not
have made this event seem to happen. What do I mean? I said seem to happen not
happen. If a brick levitates then did it really or was a natural law playing a
trick on your mind? Assume the easiest alteration of natural law - it is easier
for a number of people to see the brick levitate when nature tricks their
perception than for the brick to really rise.
It is possible for an atheist to look for a paranormal sign that there is no
God. Suppose something freaky but natural happens just as he asked - he could
take it as a sign. The freak law of nature thing turns faith and religion into
mere opinions.
Suppose miracles seem to happen. You never know if it is strange and unknown
natural laws did the miracles. Thus they are not miracles for you cannot tell if
if it was the supernatural. Miracles cannot be intended to convince you that the
supernatural exists when you need to assume that miracles are supernatural.
Assuming is no good for it’s the same as guessing. You might as well assume the
supernatural exists without seeing miracles or hearing of them. If that is
allowable, miracles should not be happening for they would need to happen for
very serious reasons and God would only be doing them as a last resort. The
miracle is not as important as its message so when you can assume you have to
let others assume what they like even if it is that a brand new faith is true.
You cannot use miracles as evidence for God or religion. You cannot believe
their message just because you were given it but you have to use your head to
see if the message is plausible. In that case, God should not have been doing
the miracle but simply discreetly giving you the light that you need. Miracles
would indicate that whatever is doing them is an incompetent stupid force.
Miracles should not be found to be sources of comfort. Indeed they cannot be. If
you think they comfort it is not them doing it for they cannot.
It will be asked at this point that if we say miracles are not really miracles
but simply just strange laws of nature briefly breaking out of their restraint
for a few minutes then what? Well then our faith in nature is stronger than it
would be if we believe the laws are supernatural ones because we are saying it
is freaks of nature not miracles that are happening.
If magic and the supernatural are true, then maybe the murderer who says he was
possessed by a demon and made to kill is telling the truth. Maybe he is
innocent. But what if he says he was possessed by some strange natural law or a
blip in nature? It is a problem but it is bad enough if you believe in nature
but worse if you believe in magic. It's something extra to give him a loophole.
Is the answer to deny the existence of the supernatural? It helps. It does not
completely solve the murderer and the demon problem. If nature has freak laws
then the murderer could say it was some kind of double temporarily created by
nature that committed the crime. There is nothing we can do about that except to
hold that if events that seem like miracles happen it is only right that they be
covered up for our own sakes! They would be dangerous and opposed to our
well-being.
The more miracles or freak laws of nature that people speak about and take
seriously the worse the problem is! But we can be sure that when people say the
supernatural does miracles so that we have both freak natural laws and then
supernatural laws to deal with that the whole situation is worsened and is made
more poisonous. In summary, it is better and therefore kinder to believe that
reported miracles are really natural freaks and that supernatural miracles
should not be even up for consideration for belief or given any credence.
If natural law can simulate miracles then does that not destroy the reliability
of evidence as much as a supernatural miracle does? For example, if alien
super-science could delude me all the time then that does as much harm as belief
in a supernatural power doing the same. The aliens would mean that miracles
can’t be real signs from Heaven as would nature simulating miracles. The problem
shows that it is best to attribute miracles to magic tricks done the earthly
usual way and verified by liars for we know no magician on earth is going to
deceive us all the time. This is not refusing to believe in miracles regardless
of the strength of the evidence for them. It is refusing to believe in miracles
so as to be able to believe in evidence.
Some say a miracle is down to the immediate action of God - that is he does not
use nature to do something but just does it straight and directly. Not all are
happy with this understanding for the Bible says God does use nature to do
things that are plainly signs. Others prefer to think that God only uses nature
to do miracles.
Only a religion subject to scientific testing should be followed, if any. That
is the only way to avoid being misled by alleged miracles even if they are not
real miracles but flukes of natural laws.
Philosopher David Hume said that miracles are so unlikely
that we are entitled to believe in none of them. He did not say that we
would necessarily be right but said that it is the only practical way.
Many find Hume’s argument persuasive. Some believers say he is right so
they choose a definition of miracle that is a bit different. Instead of
calling things such as statues talking and virgins appearing to children
miracles, things like answered prayers or rapid recovery from flu can be
miracles. Under examination, everything looks naturally explainable but it
is still rational to regard some of these events as getting over the probability
barrier and thus solving the problem expressed by Hume. This broad
understanding though leaves the door to superstition wide open. It is
worse than the problem it tries to fix. You can say that the reason the
president resigned was because you waved your rabbits foot charm at the
television when he was on the news.
When a miracle seems to happen, then bringing in the supernatural to account for
it says, “No natural explanation will ever be possible.” And also, “No natural
explanation will be seriously considered.” And more tellingly, "Maybe we
don't know the natural explanation but we will assume there is none."
Believers in miracles are not to be trusted.