In his book “The God Delusion”, Richard Dawkins argues that the truth or falsehood of miracles (which he defines as ‘temporary violations of [God’s] otherwise grandly immutable laws’) is unequivocally a scientific question.
He also suggests that the alleged miracles provide the strongest reason many believers have for their faith. Some examples of miracles for Dawkins are: the virgin birth, raising Lazarus from the dead and the resurrection of Jesus.
Dawkins’ description of miracles as ‘temporary violations of [God’s] otherwise grandly immutable laws’ is a sloppy expression which is typical of the book. If a miracle were a violation of the laws of God it would not fall within the purview of science which, in the next paragraph, Dawkins vociferously asserts.
The usual definition of miracles, is that coined by David Hume, “a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent”.
But does this definition capture the notion of miracle as it is used in religion? I would suggest that it does not.
Firstly, it is not a necessary condition for X to be described as a miracle that X is a transgression of the laws of nature.
The majority of miracles comprise events that fit this description but not all. For example, in the Old Testament, God intervenes to harden Pharaoh’s heart and he also arranges the military campaigns of the Assyrians, Persians etc to achieve his ends eg to punish the Jews for their disobedience. In these cases there is nothing extraordinary about the behaviour either of Pharaoh or the Assyrians or the Persians- what makes their behaviour miraculous is that, while to the unknowing observer Pharaoh etc are acting as they normally do, in fact they are merely the instruments of God.
Secondly, it s not a sufficient condition for X to be described as a miracle that X is a transgression of the laws of nature.
The Bible acknowledges that there are practitioners of magic who provoke wonder among people but denies that their powers come from God eg Acts 8.9-11
“Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, “This man is the divine power known as the Great Power.” They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his magic.”
In other words, mere marvels are not miracles. But if miracles are not necessarily marvels and not all marvels are miracles, what is a miracle? Ordinarily God’s action in the world is mediated- through liturgy, scripture, prayer, our encounter with out neighbour or the beauty of the world. But in miracles God intervenes in the world directly.
The reasons given in the Bible for such direct interventions are quite various and I cannot attempt a comprehensive account here. However, if we consider the gospels only, we find that Jesus performs miracles of healing to demonstrate that he is the one referred to in the scriptures- thus the references in Luke 7.21-23. to Isaiah. Elsewhere he cures blindness to show that he has power over sin; and in stilling a storm he asserts a traditional power of God over the elements thus suggesting that he is of divine origin. He rejects requests to work miracles when the request is merely a request for magic.
In the discussion of miracles since the time of Hume, interest has centred on the apologetic role of miracles- that is, their role in proving that Christianity was established by God. Thus, one of the decrees of the First Vatican Council is as follows
“If anyone says that miracles can never be known with certainty, nor can the divine origin of the Christian religion be proved from them: let him be anathema.”
This decree (objectionable as is the appended anathema) is consistent with the accounts of miracles found in the New Testament if what is at issue is the divine origin of Christianity as against eg Jews who might doubt that Jesus was the one whom God had sent. However it is inconsistent with the notion that miracles establish the existence of God since miracles already assume that God exists and is active in the world. Dawkins is thus wrong in suggesting that miracles provide a warrant for the faith of believers – rather, they are constitutive of that faith.
The most important criterion to be satisfied by any miracle is its meaning within a religious context, not whether it involves an event that transgresses the norms of nature. Of course miracle working has attracted the attention of conmen and shysters throughout the ages, never more so than today. Sometimes it is possible to demonstrate that the alleged wonders are tricks for the gullible (and here science-especially medical science- may play a role); but more often, I think, it is the tawdriness of the miracle, its lack of serious religious meaning which renders it suspect.
Where does this leave the canonisation process of the Catholic church? If someone is to be declared a Saint, it must be proven that two miracles have taken place by his or her intercession. Today, these miracles are almost always miraculous cures, as these are the easiest to establish based on the Catholic Church’s requirements for a “miracle.” (The patient was sick, there was no known cure for the ailment, prayers were directed to the putative Saint, the patient was cured, and doctors cannot explain it.) Recently, as part of the process for the canonisation of Mother Theresa, the Vatican has accepted a cure as miraculous that doctors and others claim is explicable on natural grounds. My unease about this process lies less with the alleged miraculous cure than with the view implicit in the process that the saintliness of Mother Theresa’s life needs to be authenticated in this way. To me it trivialises the life that she led.
I personally have never experienced a miracle and I am quite sceptical about most of those I have read about. It may be that the mind-set of our age makes us peculiarly unable to discern miracles. We believe every problem has a solution and that there is no mystery whose elucidation is beyond the power of science. Miracles subjected to that kind of scrutiny may become invisible.
Re: Miracles, Richard Dawkins and Mother Theresa
10And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.
11And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would.
12When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.
13Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten.
14Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.
In the Bible we are shown what bread can mean.
MT 16:12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of Bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
1COR 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
So he doesnt really mean bread perhaps. Here it may be he was referring to wisdom how it can have many meanings to a number of different people.Thus the creative aspect of words.
JN 6:48 I am that bread of life.
JN 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.