Miracles, Science, and Deception
 |
| The Healing of the Paralytic |
Experience has to do with the past; it can tell me nothing with absolute certainty about the future, but at best only establish a probability. It can tell me what has taken place, but it does not
assure me that the opposite can't take place. Universal
experience tells me that water quenches fire, but it can tell me nothing as to whether on some particular occasion water
will not fail to quench fire. Experience is the besetting idea
of the whole school of philosophy of which Hume may be
regarded as the progenitor; but here the idea actually fails. As I hope to demonstrate, a special experience may report a class of facts beyond the range of ordinary experience.
Definition of a Miracle
What is a miracle? It is an effect that can't have been produced by
any natural agency and must be attributed to the direct power of God. It is produced in nature but not by nature. The definition as thus understood excludes the act of creation, as creation didn't work in nature, but gives nature
its origin. In a less strict sense of the word, the power
exercised by an angel over matter may be called miraculous. The moral effect produced by either kind of miracle
may be the same, as in either case intervention from God is manifest. A miraculous event always produces wonder in Man; hence its name, which is from the Latin
miraculum, ''a wonderful occurrence.' Wonder is aroused by the striking contrast between what is witnessed
and what happens in the ordinary course of nature. In reference to natural laws miracles may be divided
into three classes. Some are above natural laws, as when
a dead man is restored to life. Others are contrary to natural laws, as when a stone remains suspended in the air without any support. Others, again, are simply apart
from, or independent of, natural laws, as when a brain tumor that might be healed by a physician is healed instead by the touch of a holy person. In all these classes of miracles
either the substance of what occurs or the manner in which
it occurs makes it impossible to attribute it to any natural agency.
Are Miracles Possible?
If we accept the existence of an omnipotent God who is the author and preserver of all finite things, it is inconceivable that He wouldn't be sovereign master and controller of that which is the work of His
hands. If a human inventor can modify or interfere with
the working of any given technology which is the product
of his own brain, much more easily can God interfere with
the mechanism of the universe. This simple fact must be convincing to any one who believes in an omnipotent God; and, as to the Atheist, he must at least admit
that if there is a God He can interfere in His own creation. One can object to this reasoning on the grounds that, while God could interfere with the action of natural laws, nevertheless it would be inconsistent with
His infinite wisdom to do so. Nature's laws are of God's own making and are sufficient for the purposes of His
creation. Why, then, should He interfere with their working? Good question. Here's the answer: Nature's laws are
sufficient for the ordinary purposes of creation, but higher purposes may be served by miracles. By means
of miracles God impresses upon us the truth that nature's laws proceed from Him and are subject to Him. By miracles He can put the seal of His approval on the words
and deeds of those whom He has commissioned to preach
His Gospel. By miracles He can show forth the merits
of chosen disciples whom He has set up as examples in the Church. By miracles He can give a striking proof that He still abides with His Church and is exercising a continual providence over it. We are more impressed by what
is unusual and exceptional than by what is ordinary and
commonplace; and hence it is by extraordinary supernatural events that God accomplishes the higher and more special purposes of His will.
Miracles vs. Science
The stock objection against miracles in the Post-Modern era is made
in the name of Science, but we must distinguish
between science and Scientism. Science is viewed by certain radical elements in the scientific community as the only repository of truth, and is, therefore, alone worthy of faith. Taking this radical Materialist/Naturalist approach, a belief in miracles is regarded by them as backward, primitive superstition. They argue against miracles chiefly by
repeating one and the same argument. They tell us that nature's laws are constant and
uniform in their operation; that water quenches fire and
stones fall to the ground by virtue of fixed and unchangeable laws; and that miracles are a contradiction of this principle. An answer has long since been given to the objection, which is that the laws in question are uniform
and constant in their action so far as the purely natural
order is concerned, but that we have no warrant for concluding that the natural order may not be subject to interference from a higher order. To this they might say that if exceptions
to natural laws are permitted, science can never be sure
of its conclusions. To some extent that is true. Science can never be
sure of its conclusions if there is no means of distinguishing
exceptions from the rule; but a miracle, of its very nature,
points to and emphasizes an exception, as such, to natural
laws. Its very name, in fact, arises from the astonishment
felt at a departure from natural law. Here, first and foremost,
the exception proves the rule. The rule remains intact and
science is unfazed.
The scientists with whom we are dealing, however, don't believe in a supernatural order. In that case, let them spend their time and energy disproving its existence; in which task they find no support from science itself. Yet that is the crucial issue; for, once
a supernatural order is admitted, the possibility of its interfering with the natural order must be evident.
Science, after all, has added nothing to ordinary knowledge that tends to make a miracle more astonishing or, at
first sight, less credible. From the days of Adam it has
been known that a stone released from the hands falls to the ground. If by a miracle the stone should be suspended in the air, the fact isn't more astonishing today
because science has given a name to the law by which the stone falls, or has discovered more about the extent of its empire, or has defined the mode of its behavior. And even where science has discovered a previously unknown law, exceptions to the law are no more astonishing than if the law had been known from the beginning of time. Why,
then, invoke with all the reverence of faith the name of science against a belief in miracles, as though science had imported a new element into the controversy? It is this religion that has been called Scientism that truly keeps them from recognizing the reality of the supernatural realm.
How Are Miracles Recognized?
First, they can be known and recognized simply
as extraordinary events, whether their true cause is known
or not. As they commonly appeal to the senses, it is only
necessary that the senses be in a healthy condition. In fact, in the history of Christianity, many such
events have been observed by numerous witnesses, by sober minded, unimaginative, and sometimes even skeptical observers, and their wonderful character has been acknowledged. It is a profound mistake in our opponents to assume that all reports
of miracles are myth, ignorance, lies, etc. Second, miracles may be known and recognized precisely as miracles, and not merely as wonderful
events brought about by some unknown cause. To be able
to pronounce an event miraculous I must be sure that no
natural cause has produced it and that it has been caused
supernaturally. It does not follow, however, that I must
be acquainted with every law of nature. It is sufficient to know that one law has been contravened and that, at
least, the circumstances connected with the event exclude the action of all other natural laws. Skeptics will undoubtedly object to this by asking how it is possible by a consideration of any circumstances to eliminate all the unknown
laws of nature? Our knowledge of nature is limited; and
when we see a thing happen that is contrary to all the known laws of nature, isn't it reasonable to suppose that
if we knew more we would have no difficulty in explaining the event by purely natural causation? Another good question, and my answer is as follows: The scientific approach necessarily prompts one to seek a natural cause
for any interference with a known law of nature; and it is understandable that a non-believing scientist, though dumbfounded at the sight of a miracle, would have a hard time accepting a supernatural event had occurred. The problem is, these Atheistic activist scientists take the approach that science is absolute knowledge, and that if an event cannot be measured, repeated, tested, etc., it simply didn't occur as described, or can't exist. This is essentially a claim to absolute knowledge. Physical science simply isn't such that it can witness to all the facets of spiritual reality. Those whose expertise qualifies them to determine the genuineness of alleged miracles are the people to be consulted. The criteria for proving a miracle is as strictly logical as any that physical science can boast of. Within the pale of physical science, when attempting to determine the cause of a given mysterious
phenomenon, the process of elimination is one of the first steps taken; the next is the seeking of positive evidence
in favor of one cause in particular, of whose action and
presence there are prima facie indications. A brilliant example was witnessed in the series of experiments made
by Pasteur to test the conclusions of another distinguished
scientist in favor of spontaneous generation. The one alleged cause was eliminated and the true cause positively
demonstrated. Such experiments bespeak the true scientist; and we mention them because an analogous method
of inquiry, and one no less thorough, is used by any thinking clergyman in investigating the genuineness of miracles. The first stage of the process results in the establishment of the fact that the cure, if it be a case of that kind, can't be accounted for by any known natural agency;
and this conclusion is based on the testimony of medical experts. The next step is to determine whether the circumstances of the case are of a kind to warrant the elimination of all natural causation from the inquiry and the
attributing of the effect to a supernatural cause. Only when natural factors have been eliminated can we say there has been a genuine miracle. Now, this isn't to suggest that there are no other characteristics looked for, as there very much are. Christians understand that events can occur that are mistaken for miracles, when in fact they are diabolic deceptions. Some examples of these would be the apparitions at Medjugorje and Bayside. It is necessary that the perceived miracle conflict in no way with the entire witness of Sacred Scripture, but rather confirms it in all it teaches. It can't be the harbinger of any new doctrine or practice. The ability to distinguish one from another is, yet again, outside the scope of the physical sciences to achieve, and is best left to those clergymen trained to do so.
Comments
Post a Comment