Miracles

Introduction

In this essay we will try to deal with miracles, what they are what they are supposed to be, if they exist at all and foremost with the dangers and advantages one has when believing in them.

What is a Miracle ? The Definition(s)

There are several definitions used for the term miracle. It can be either of the following :

a)       an act or event that breaks the laws of nature, and is therefore thought to be caused by the intervention of God or another supernatural force.

b)       An event that appears inexplicable by the laws nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God.

c)       An event that is explicable by the laws nature but was not expected so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God.

We will give now examples for those definitions. As for a) suppose the earth would suddenly stop to turn without natural cause. As for b) we could use the same example. A good example for c) would be if You were followed by a lion and suddenly when he reaches You he just stops and doesn‘t attack anymore.

Do proovable Miracles exist ?

Now when we look at the above question we must answer that question for every definition we use. We then must also see if the result is what we „normally“ would see as miracle.

As for a) we must look at the definition of the laws of nature. Natural law means normally :

A law or body of laws that derives from nature and is believed to be binding upon human actions apart from or in conjunction with laws established by human authority.

When going further and looking for a definition of nature we see :

a)       The material world and its phenomena.

b)       The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.

Important in this aspect is that nature itself is considered „unaltering“, so that natural laws would sooner or later reflect the true and absolute nature of this universe. So by definition the nature and also the natural laws in the end are fixed.

If we see a) in this aspect then miracles as in a) can‘t be simply because the laws of nature can’t be broken by definition.

A better aproach seems to be b) where we say that miracles only seem inexplicable, but don‘t break the laws. Then this is seen as Gods work. This however has two flaws. First of all since our knowledge increases many things we would - according to this definition - consider as miracles would or could later be seen as normal. Second since we never know when our knowledge has reached an end we could never say that a miracle really is one. To demonstrate this we use a simple example: Suppose 20000 years ago when people had no idea about making fire and or blizzards perhaps. According to b) a blizzard who struck a tree and generated a fire would have been considered a miracle. We do doubt that the same event would be considered wondrous in the 20^th century. Also suppose some illness for example that affects only a certain blood type. Now while many in a village would perhaps die some would not. Would people consider this as miracle if they had the knowledge about the desease ? No, Would they consider it as a miracle if they had not the knowledge? According to b) yes.

So here we have the problem that the term miracle would be used temporarly only untill the knowledge comes. We think this would not resemble the idea of miracles people have. Also even b) gives no reasonable justification or proof why or if this „miracle“ came from God.

So what remains is the definition of miracle according to c). As with b) we have some problems here. How could one with his limited knowledge know that the explainable event really happened unexpected? It could be just a normal yet unknown factor. If we look at the lion example above we could explain it with the idea that the lion only wanted to play and had no real intent to harm us. So again we have the problem that we perhaps would perceive it as a miracle while it is not really one. Also what some might perceive as miracles might be considered normal by others. As an example look at epilepsy which in some parts of the world is considered the devils work. However children often recover and get healed because they are still developing. This would be considered a miracle by some normal people there. Doctors however see it as quiet normal. So again we have a definition which is „sloopy“ meaning that no real statements about what a miracle is and what not can be made.

Ok now what do we see here? There is no way to have proovable miracles which will be considered miracles in all times. Although some might get the idea that something is a miracle there is no way to proove that Your knowledge is not simply to low to realise what really happened. The utmost one can say is that a miracle is a personal realisation and understanding of what You or some other saw or received. In this way a miracle would be an event that would only be considered woundrous but could never be prooven so.

Can miracles exist at all ?

Now after the last chapter this question may seem a bit weird. We just said that there is no proovable miracle, so why this question. Well this is easy to answer. Although we can‘ t say we cant proove miracles we are not entitled to say miracles are not existent. We could use the definition c) of miracles (and only this one) and say : „it may be possible that something unexpected happened because of Gods will“. Principally this is possible, because to show it is not possible You would have to disproove Gods abilities (or better to say God himself ) which is impossible. So there is a difference between the possibility of something and they possibility of prooving it.

Are miracles good or bad or dangerous or helpfull ?

The question is not well formulated as miracles normally are always considered good. One should rather ask : „ Is belief in miracles good, or bad or dangerous or helpfull ?“.

As we have seen miracles are not proovable. So everything that happens, every event could be considered a miracle according to the person that perceives it, but neither could this be prooven, nor must this event be considered a miracle by all others nor is it a must that  this event be considered a miracle in the future.

So what remains is the „personal miracle“. Now the question arises if this belief is in any way valuable and / or dangerous. I do think that belief in miracles is for several reasons wrong and even dangerous.

·       Blasphemic reasons:

Many see miracles especially in those cases when something good happenes to themselves or to known and befriended people. The test above of the lion is a good example of such „miracles“. However never seems to wonder how blasphemous it may be is to believe himself so valuable that mighty God sends a miracle for him. After all does the belief that such a miracle happened „extra“ for You not render You important? I agree that not all humans follow that way of „pride“, yet it is a temptation.

·       Degeneratic reasons:

Another question which needs to be answered is to what it leads if You believe in miracles. Now lets consider the example of people of ancient ages, when they said earthquakes or blizzards or the sun was a miracle. Obviously they are not for us today. And had it not been for some people that did not believe such stuff, we would still believe in them. So obviously believe in miracles can to a certain extend stop us from doing research. One example that perhaps sound familiar to some readers is an accident in an arab country. This of course is not a miracle as miracles are always good, but the type of event is the same. If there for example someone had an accident and died You will often here such things as „God had wished so.“ or „That’s what God has predestined for him.“. Unfortunatly many times the real accident is never really researched as to what „physical“ reasons it had. Therefore these kind of things happen again and again. The explanation using God as source for that is sufficient.

·       Dangerous reasons:

What could be dangerous in the belief of miracles? The danger lies in the fact that belief in miracles also happens to be a weak point against „imposters“ and „pretenders“. There are interesting studies on how many people fall prey to people that earn their money with „miracles“. People healing with the hand or with „stones“, with „magic“ or whatsoever. Also rulers can manipulate people if they can only show them the „miracles“ that happened and that all of them had to do with their „capable“ rule of the country. People believing in miracles can be misused and led astray

Conclusion

Of course there are many saying that their belief in miracles is fundamental, that they dont believe in everything but in prooved miracles etc etc etc.

Now as (hopefully) already shown, humans simply can’t proove an event to be a miracle. So the statement that one doesn’t believe in everything but only in prooved ones is rather false. We might consider the statement „I dont believe in all events as miracles, but only in those that  reasonably seem to be ones.“ Here we have again the problem that nobody can say what is reasonable. Everybody has his own measure, so in the end we have the same situation we have now, with some people believeing nearly anything, while others believe only some events to be miracles etc etc. Perhaps we should think about the first part of the statement above : “belief in miracles is fundamental.“ There we perhaps can ask why is it fundamental? What would be the problem if one just said: „I dont believe any event to be a miracle, since I can’t proove it“? I guess none. After all would God be angry or harm us because we dont believe in things we can’t know for sure, yet see so many dangers in them? Does the idea that we can’t proove miracles and don’t believe in them do God any harm, does it offend him? Why would it? No the safest way to ship around the dangers involved with miracles is to accept nothing in this world as a miracle. It is not to be denied that a miracle according to one of the above definitions (c) could occur, yet we can never be sure of it. And if You have to choose between all the negative implications of the belief in miracles and the general „nonbelief“ of events as miracles, then You should choose the second.