Miracles

[Nearly Sane]

Following on from some of the discussion on the Jesus thread today, and previous threads over the years, I'm wondering what in philosophical terms a miracle claim means. Obviously there is a colloquial sense in which it's a fortuitous, or unusual event but in the more 'religious' sense, it seems to be something that cannot happen without some force 'breaking the laws of physics' or some such. Since those laws are just descriptions of events, how can we judge any new event as not just giving us more information?

Those making miracle claims might count to the unlikeliest of any event, but unlikely events, and indeed extraordinarily unlikely events happen all the time. In that view they are highly likely, just not the specific incidence.

This is further confused by the claims of some that there are miracles when the event itself has a relatively high probability - as an example on this board, Alan Burns attributing finding a contact lens to a miracle.

I'm left baffled as to what is being claimed, and whether it is anything other than a form of poetic conceit even when used in the religious sense.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I’ve never understood what this term is supposed to mean. Here for example is one description:

“The word is used widely in nonreligious ways. However, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which sums up the church’s teachings, defines it as “a sign or wonder such as a healing, or control of nature, which can only be attributed to divine power.

In the canonization process, a miracle almost always refers to the spontaneous and lasting remission of a serious, life-threatening medical condition. The healing must have taken place in ways that the best-informed scientific knowledge cannot account for and follow prayers to the holy person.”

https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/what-is-a-miracle/#:~:text=In%20the%20canonization%20process%2C%20a,prayers%20to%20the%20holy%20person.

The Catholic Catechism in turn defines it as:

“A sign or wonder, such as a healing or the control of nature, which can only be attributed to divine power. The miracles of Jesus were Messianic signs of the presence of God’s kingdom.”

https://www.usccb.org/sites/default/files/flipbooks/catechism/890/

These definitions seem to be me though to be fundamentally flawed because they rely entirely on the state of human knowledge at the time the supposed miracle is investigated. I suppose that if ever, say, a case could be made for humans being omniscient then anything non-explicable could be deemed miraculous, but as axiomatically there’s likely to be far more that we don’t know than that we do know, that’s quite a leap from “currently no naturalistic explanation” to “therefore miracle”.

How in other words can any event “only be attributed to divine power” rather than just run out of legs at the limit of contemporary knowledge?       

[ekim]

I think the word originally simply meant an object of wonder or something that excites wonder or astonishment and had no connection to a  divinity or supernatural power.  The Greek words  in the Bible were' semeion' meaning 'sign', 'teras' meaning 'wonder', and 'dynamis' meaning 'power', but were translated as 'miracle'.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I’ve never understood what this term is supposed to mean. Here for example is one description:

“The word is used widely in nonreligious ways. However, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which sums up the church’s teachings, defines it as “a sign or wonder such as a healing, or control of nature, which can only be attributed to divine power.

In the canonization process, a miracle almost always refers to the spontaneous and lasting remission of a serious, life-threatening medical condition. The healing must have taken place in ways that the best-informed scientific knowledge cannot account for and follow prayers to the holy person.”

https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/what-is-a-miracle/#:~:text=In%20the%20canonization%20process%2C%20a,prayers%20to%20the%20holy%20person.

The Catholic Catechism in turn defines it as:

“A sign or wonder, such as a healing or the control of nature, which can only be attributed to divine power. The miracles of Jesus were Messianic signs of the presence of God’s kingdom.”

https://www.usccb.org/sites/default/files/flipbooks/catechism/890/

These definitions seem to be me though to be fundamentally flawed because they rely entirely on the state of human knowledge at the time the supposed miracle is investigated. I suppose that if ever, say, a case could be made for humans being omniscient then anything non-explicable could be deemed miraculous, but as axiomatically there’s likely to be far more that we don’t know than that we do know, that’s quite a leap from “currently no naturalistic explanation” to “therefore miracle”.

How in other words can any event “only be attributed to divine power” rather than just run out of legs at the limit of contemporary knowledge?       

Surely anything non explicable definitionally means humans are not omniscient? But, yes, I agree.


However, there is nothing close to non explicable about Alan's found contact lens, and yet it is according to Alan a miracle so what's happening there?

[Sriram]

When people claim miracles it is not always about breaking the laws of physics. It could be events in ones life that one did not expect and the probability of which was very low, but which happened none the less. Usually positive events that helped in a specific situation.

[Nearly Sane]

When people claim miracles it is not always about breaking the laws of physics. It could be events in ones life that one did not expect and the probability of which was very low, but which happened none the less. Usually positive events that helped in a specific situation.

That seems to me covered by the colloquial sense I wrote about in the OP.

[Gordon]

When people claim miracles it is not always about breaking the laws of physics. It could be events in ones life that one did not expect and the probability of which was very low, but which happened none the less. Usually positive events that helped in a specific situation.

For me, as regards miracle claims, the first issue to deal with is the risk of human artifice: mistake, bias, lies, exaggeration, propaganda etc. It seem to me that unless these risks can be assessed and reconciled there is little point in considering the possibility that something 'miraculous' occurred. Even then, assuming that the are no grounds to reject human artifice, albeit that seems unlikely, then on what basis or method is the presumption of 'miracle' even justified?

Simply saying that all known natural phenomena have been rejected or excluded isn't sufficient, since not all that is natural is yet known, and may never be known, and since for those miracle claims that date from antiquity then those making the claim knew much less about natural phenomena than is currently the case.  Personally, since I can't see how human artifice can be meaningfully excluded where the 'evidence' is anecdotal and of uncertain provenance, then I don't think miracle claims are ever a serious proposition.

[Nearly Sane]

For me, as regards miracle claims, the first issue to deal with is the risk of human artifice: mistake, bias, lies, exaggeration, propaganda etc. It seem to me that unless these risks can be assessed and reconciled there is little point in considering the possibility that something 'miraculous' occurred. Even then, assuming that the are no grounds to reject human artifice, albeit that seems unlikely, then on what basis or method is the presumption of 'miracle' even justified?

Simply saying that all known natural phenomena have been rejected or excluded isn't sufficient, since not all that is natural is yet known, and may never be known, and since for those miracle claims that date from antiquity then those making the claim knew much less about natural phenomena than is currently the case.  Personally, since I can't see how human artifice can be meaningfully excluded where the 'evidence' is anecdotal and of uncertain provenance, then I don't think miracle claims are ever a serious proposition.

I don't read Sriram as taking that position in this post, but my OP isn't really about the truth of miracle claims, it it was I would have placed it on a different board.

The thing I'm raising is that it's not really clear to me what is being claimed as a miracle means.

[Sriram]

When discussing miracles I am always reminded of one joke. I am sure I have written about this on here before.

**********

Jesus, Moses  and a old man with a white beard were paying golf.

Jesus took his shot first. The ball flew down and fell into a lake. Using his miraculous powers, Jesus walked on water and hit the ball. The ball fell near the hole but missed it by a whisker.

Next Moses hit the ball. The ball again flew down and fell into the lake. Using his miraculous powers, Moses parted the waters and hit the ball. The ball once again fell near the hole but missed it by a whisker.

Next the old man with a white beard hit the ball. The ball once again fell into the lake. A frog took the ball in its mouth and hopped onto the land. An eagle seeing the frog swooped down and grabbed the frog in its talons. As the eagle was flying over the green, the ball got dislodged from the frogs mouth and fell straight into the hole!

Moses shakes his head and tells Jesus...'Now this is why I refuse to play with your dad'.

**********

Now which part of the third process was a miracle? They were all natural events by themselves....but together they represent a specific direction.....which is the real miracle! 

[Nearly Sane]

When discussing miracles I am always reminded of one joke. I am sure I have written about this on here before.

**********

Jesus, Moses  and a old man with a white beard were paying golf.

Jesus took his shot first. The ball flew down and fell into a lake. Using his miraculous powers, Jesus walked on water and hit the ball. The ball fell near the hole but missed it by a whisker.

Next Moses hit the ball. The ball again flew down and fell into the lake. Using his miraculous powers, Moses parted the waters and hit the ball. The ball once again fell near the hole but missed it by a whisker.

Next the old man with a white beard hit the ball. The ball once again fell into the lake. A frog took the ball in its mouth and hopped onto the land. An eagle seeing the frog swooped down and grabbed the frog in its talons. As the eagle was flying over the green, the ball got dislodged from the frogs mouth and fell straight into the hole!

Moses shakes his head and tells Jesus...'Now this is why I refuse to play with your dad'.

**********

Now which part of the third process was a miracle? They were all natural events by themselves....but together they represent a specific direction.....which is the real miracle!

So for you a 'miracle' is anything with 'direction'? Note it's not clear from the above what you mean by direction.

[Alan Burns]

However, there is nothing close to non explicable about Alan's found contact lens, and yet it is according to Alan a miracle so what's happening there?

Your are confusing answers to prayer with miraculous events.
Answers to prayer are often achieved by what appear to be perfectly natural events achieved through divine guidance of human will.  Having said that, the guidance of human will - by the human soul or by God can be deemed miraculous even though it is a common part of our everyday life.

[Nearly Sane]

Your are confusing answers to prayer with miraculous events.
Answers to prayer are often achieved by what appear to be perfectly natural events achieved through divine guidance of human will.  Having said that, the guidance of human will - by the human soul or by God can be deemed miraculous even though it is a common part of our everyday life.

OK, thanks for that. So what is a miracle then to you? How does it differ from an answer to a prayer. Since you see guidance of human will as sometimes miraculous and sometimes not, what is it that makes the difference?

[Alan Burns]

OK, thanks for that. So what is a miracle then to you? How does it differ from an answer to a prayer. Since you see guidance of human will as sometimes miraculous and sometimes not, what is it that makes the difference?

Many years ago I came to the logical conclusion that every deliberate act of human will - be it guided by God or by the human soul - is a miraculous event.  Some time later I discovered that CS Lewis came to the same conclusion in his book, "Miracles".  So my definition of a miracle would be an act of deliberation which has no physical explanation.  Such acts are the ultimate source of all creativity.  The process of creation begins with a consciously conceived goal and this goal is achieved by consciously driven acts of will which interact with our material universe.

[Aruntraveller]

Many years ago I came to the logical conclusion that every deliberate act of human will - be it guided by God or by the human soul - is a miraculous event

So my deliberate act of human will to have sex with my male partner is a miraculous event.

Good to know.

[Nearly Sane]

Many years ago I came to the logical conclusion that every deliberate act of human will - be it guided by God or by the human soul - is a miraculous event.  Some time later I discovered that CS Lewis came to the same conclusion in his book, "Miracles".  So my definition of a miracle would be an act of deliberation which has no physical explanation.  Such acts are the ultimate source of all creativity.  The process of creation begins with a consciously conceived goal and this goal is achieved by consciously driven acts of will which interact with our material universe.

Thank you for this, note it only addresses one of the questions I asked out of 'So what is a miracle then to you? How does it differ from an answer to a prayer. Since you see guidance of human will as sometimes miraculous and sometimes not, what is it that makes the difference?' - I'd be obliged if you attempted to answer the second 2?

As to this answer, just to be clear on what you mean, you think every deliberate abortion is '?

Are 'miracles' only deliberate human acts? Or are some non human acts 'miracles'?

How, given you are not omniscient' can you state that there are acts no physical explanation? Note, if this is a logical argument as you seem to imply, please set this out in detail as a logical argument. I am sure you can understand that just stating it is a logical conclusion is insufficient justification.

[Nearly Sane]

So my deliberate act of human will to have sex with my male partner is a miraculous event.

Good to know.

At our age, yes. 

[Sriram]

So 'direction ' for you is something that is 'guided by a superior intelligence', and when you think something is 'guided by a superior intelligence', then you call it a 'miracle'?

Einstein has once said....."There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”

I live as though everything is a miracle.

[Nearly Sane]

Einstein has once said....."There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”

I live as though everything is a miracle.

Nice quote. Is that a yes to the question?

And as a follow up what does living as though everything is a 'miracle' mean to you?

[Gordon]

Moderator

There were a few recent posts in this thread which strayed into the issue of 'intelligence in evolution', and since there is already a specific thread on this subject these posts have been merged into that thread.

https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=14847.msg882080#new 

[Alan Burns]

So my deliberate act of human will to have sex with my male partner is a miraculous event.

Good to know.

Yes indeed - God has delegated us with the miraculous power to consciously choose what we do with our earthly lives.  God has also revealed that our choices will define our ultimate destiny.

[jeremyp]

Yes indeed - God has delegated us with the miraculous power to consciously choose what we do with our earthly lives. 

There's nothing miraculous about it. It's a function of our biology.

God has also revealed that our choices will define our ultimate destiny.

Not to me, he didn't. And yes, I did ask.

[Aruntraveller]

Yes indeed - God has delegated us with the miraculous power to consciously choose what we do with our earthly lives.  God has also revealed that our choices will define our ultimate destiny.

And only now do you make your statement conditional.