A Short Discourse on the Question of Miracles

The following is a response I wrote for an atheist friend who asked for personal accounts of miracles, which they then defined as “something that defies the known laws of physics.” They stated that while they had heard many stories of unusual events, they believed the causes to be perfectly rational and natural. In my response, I both relayed a personal experience I had a couple of years ago and made the argument that miracles are in fact perfectly rational and natural and that the definition which she used is a modern straw man created by David Hume, and not the classical definition of a miracle.

A Personal Experience of a Miracle

To begin, I'd like to describe an event that happened to me two years ago, which doesn't defy any laws of physics, but which was extremely (on orders of magnitude) unlikely. I was moonlighting as a security guard, with a number of properties to watch during the night, including a lot with a large number of U-Haul trucks. I never visually checked inside the cabs if they were locked (which they always were) as the windows were above my eye level, and generally just walked around without investigating the particular trucks too closely. My attention instead was on making sure there was no visible damage or noticeable signs of a break-in. One night, I was walking in front of one of the rows of trucks, when the truck immediately to my left suddenly flashed its lights. This was obviously extremely startling. When I checked the cab, I found a small boy sleeping (perhaps 8-9 years old), who must have accidentally kicked the lights causing them to engage at the exact moment I walked by.

Long story short, the boy had been missing for a week, and hadn't eaten or drunk anything for a number of days. He was very frightened, exhausted, without a jacket or any protective clothing, and the temperatures were sub-freezing. After calming him and assuring him that he wasn't in any trouble, I was able to give him my jacket and small sips of coffee while I called the police, who came with paramedics and child services. I am convinced that if I hadn't found him that night, he likely would have succumbed to the elements.

Now did this break any laws of physics? No, it did not. But if I hadn't been in that exact position, at that exact moment (with maybe a second or two of leeway), and if he hadn't kicked that light (I assume he did) and it hadn't engaged for a split second to alert me to his presence, then there’s a very real likelihood that he would have died. Due to its extreme improbability, I consider that a miracle, whereby God (maybe on a subconscious level) interacted with both our minds to cause us to be at the exactly right place at the exactly right time.

The (Often Misunderstood) Nature of Miracles

A miracle doesn't have to break the laws of physics. That has never strictly been its definition, even in ancient times. It simply needs to be evidence of an outside Intelligence interacting within those laws, to effect a result that is outside our normal human experience. As Thomas Aquinas wrote, a miracle is simply an event whose source is “apart from the general order of things” and not necessarily contrary to it (1). As far as I can tell, Hume was the first to insist they break natural laws, so that he could build a straw man to knock down using circular reasoning (that miracles can't happen since they break the laws of nature, and human experience shows the laws of nature unbroken, because miracles are never observed)(2).

I perceived God's presence in that moment the same way I perceive that those I interact with through social media are actual people, based on their tweets, shares, and comments. I don't have any proof that the letters which are posted aren't just a random arrangement of electrical signals that erroneously appeared in the system. I don't have any proof that a social media account is not a non-human bot. But our online interaction demonstrates to me that you exist; in a similar way to how the episode that I experienced above demonstrated to me God's miraculous care in that moment. That interaction between minds, and the perception of outside consciousness intervening in the situation still constitutes a genuine miracle. It is the very unlikelihood of an event occurring naturally and without interference which alerts us to the presence of intelligent interaction (whether among humans or with the Divine).

The Granddaddy of All Miracles: The Resurrection of Christ

So, what about the reports of miracles we have that are less subtle and truly extraordinary? For that, I suggest we look at the miracle of miracles, the singular one on which the entire Christian faith rests, the resurrection of Jesus. Now, the popular argument that I hear most often against it runs along the circular reasoning of Hume referenced above. Resurrections don’t happen, because if they did happen, it would be observed within the laws of nature and would consistently happen all the time under the right conditions. The problem is that the laws of nature are by necessity generalizations of human experience and not immutable realities. “Laws of nature” are predictive and descriptive, not proscriptive the way we think of human laws. They are simply what we have consistently observed in nature. Since we have not consistently observed all possible conditions, we cannot know all characteristics of the natural order. This uncertainty is highlighted by discoveries over the past several decades within the field of quantum mechanics.

As Heisenberg observed, there are limits to the extent to which we can measure the complementary variables (such as position and momentum) of particles. For instance, if we know a photon’s exact position, we can’t know it’s momentum and vice versa. So our knowledge of these particles includes a probabilistic range of behavior. As we’ve learned more about the cosmos, we’ve realized that the classical assumptions about its deterministic behavior are wrong. The future isn’t a predetermined reality, it is an uncreated (until it is created as the present) range of potentialities, many of which are much more likely to happen than others.

Within this almost infinite range of realities, there are quite possibly (but extremely unlikely) conditions which lead to the resurrection of a body. If an outside Intelligence, with perfect knowledge of those conditions, interacts with the cosmos in a way that doesn’t change the probability of such an event happening in any given moment, then they cannot be said to have necessarily “broken” the laws of nature, even by effecting a resurrection. Since such an event is so extremely unlikely, if credible reports of a resurrection arise, it does not necessarily mean they are false (unless the reports themselves are unreliable). Rather, with numerous credible reports (which Christians believe we have in the New Testament and early Apostolic accounts), the likelihood of the source being an omnipotent Intelligence increases.

Additionally, given the wide range of possibilities within the natural order, it may be that God acts in such a way so as to not upset the likelihood of expected outcomes. This does not mean miracles are violations of the natural order (as David Hume presumed) but rather unlikely events which disturb the natural operation of the cosmos, suggesting to us the presence of and interaction with an outside Intelligence, in the same way that every day interactions with the effects of other human’s actions convince us that there are other intelligent beings which exist besides ourselves. Miraculous effects then are observed to be within the natural order, but their source (whether by degrees or outright) is beyond it (3).

Christians, just like skeptics, recognize the extreme improbability associated with miracles. And we should insist that all possibilities be investigated when reports arise. However, given the wide range of human experience and the very nature by which we perceive Intelligence, I do not think we can simply brush aside credible reports when they arise with the outdated Humean response that “miracles don’t happen because the laws of nature prohibit them.” The laws of nature do no such thing because the laws of nature (as characteristics of observed effects) don’t actually do anything.

Sources

(1) Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Contra Gentiles. 3.101.1. Transl. by Vernon J. Bourke.

(2) Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. 10.1.

(3) Aquinas. Summa Contra Gentiles. 3.101.2.

*Edited for clarity.

#miracles #theism #atheism #philosophy #reason #science #experience

Recommendations for Those Struggling Between Faith and Reason

Many within Western Culture have struggled with just how faith and reason interact and some have erroneously maintained that these are incompatible, and that faith somehow suggests a rejection of reason.

For those struggling between these philosophical and cultural forces, I have a couple of recommendations, as I too have found myself at a similar crossroads and wrestled deeply with issues of faith and reason. I will go ahead and tell you that I do affirm my Christian faith and I also fully affirm the reliability of reason in determining and judging scientific discovery, but through this struggle I have both greatly expanded my ideas regarding who or what Christ is, and how this translates into purpose for my life. Anyway, here are some brief suggestions as you continue your journey:

1) Do not be afraid to doubt. Doubt is the means by which we humbly question our own assumptions. It provides the opportunity for self-reflection and discovery. Never fear doubt. If you decide to continue living a life of faith, remember that scripture never presents God as One who punishes doubters and that doubt forms a foundational catalyst for transformation in many scriptural stories (cf. dialuges beteween God and Abraham, Gideon, and Moses; the Lament Psalms; the books of Job, Ecclesiastes, & Lamentations).

2) Challenge your own definitions. Many on here argue from basic assumptions regarding what words like "reason," "faith," "spiritual," and "good," really mean. These are all philosophically, culturally, and historically complex terms each with many, often competing definitions. For me, a major turning point was when I no longer defined faith as "blind belief" or "belief contrary to evidence," and instead defined it as "relational trust" in a God who is present in the Incarnation of Christ, and who died and resurrected. This definition was shaped by a re-evaluation of the often misquoted verse in Heb. 11:1 (which refers to hope in the future based on the evidence of Christ's resurrection, and not in a baseless past). I realized that the only God which could matter at all is not a cosmological-derived god found in the gaps of reason; but instead in a relational God found in the Incarnation of Christ.

3) Challenge your cultural assumptions. Despite my belief in objective truth, I know that we all view life through our own cultural lens. For Evangelical Christianity in America, this has often meant that people equate faith with right-wing political machinations and the heavy collusion of state and church forces. This is unfortunate, because it turns a lot of people off to Christianity, who see it simply as another corrupt means of control. But the more I have studied the teaching of Jesus, the critical, textual, and historical development of the New Testament, and the effects of cultural biases; the more I have fallen in love with the promise which Christ has provided and represents even today.

4) Do not fall into the trap of confirmation bias. So many people, whether theists or atheists or any other stripe of religious philosophy (or the lack there of) actively seek out sources that only reinforce their current beliefs. Don't be afraid of contrary opinions, but at the same time, don't give undue weight to those who reinforce ideas you may already be forming simply because they are convenient. For example, I personally have become convinced of the relative historical reliability of the gospel accounts and the conviction that the disciples believed they had witnessed the resurrected Christ. I think the historical record confirms this (as do most scholars), despite the recent influx of scholars and writers who suggest that Christ never existed. I think the often overly vocal minority opinion is given so much weight in some circles because it confirms the preconceived notions of those who hold to it.

5) Expand your ideas concerning what is possible. A large part of my theological development has been heavily influenced by the works of the Jesuit priest, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and his writings positing the noosphere and the idea of The Omega Point as a realization of the hope that all of Creation will one day be fully integrated, fully self-realized, and fully united (cf. theosis) in the Body of Christ itself; as well as the works of Carl Jung within the field of analytical psychology. So many people lose sight of the great promises of what someday will be, that their philosophy collapses into nothing more than a self-serving, hedonistic practicalism.

You'll notice that in the recommendations above, I have tried to guide you to some influential thinkers while at the same time I have avoided telling you exactly what to think. I want you to discover that for yourself. Still, it may be provide some comfort during your intellectual and spiritual struggle ahead that others have fought along the same path you now undertake and many have found fulfilling insights (which are usually accompanied by more questions) along the way. God bless you as you look for answers and I hope that you find what you are looking for.

#faith #reason #philosophy #belief

Debate Review 1: Is There a God? - Rick Warren v. Sam Harris

Below are my reactions to the informal debate between Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church and the neuroscientist Sam Harris on Religion and Atheism, which was published back in 2007. This is intended to be the first review in a series of debates between prominent atheists and theists. The link to the debate is below:

Informal Debate on Religion and Atheism Between Rick Warren and Sam Harris, 2007 - via Newsweek

Bridges in the Debate for Mutual Understanding

Hmm, while an interesting debate, I think there are a few valuable take-aways for those reading. First, you'll often find religious debates revolve around the same issues without really moving forward.

For instance, in this debate Sam Harris opens up to an understanding of spirituality that is couched in reason. That's something that both sides should really explore further, as it seems like a great bridge.

Additionally, Rick makes some statements regarding wonder, order, beauty, etc. that would be helpful both when talking about our understanding of the universe, and in the Christian understanding of God. Another bridge.

The Inadequate Treatment of Miracles

However, a number of statements were made (particularly by Rick) that were either unhelpful, in my opinion, or were not unpacked sufficiently. For instance, he appealed to miracles as a reason for faith, but did not address Sam's statistical or cultural concerns surrounding the phenomenon.

It would be helpful if miracles were explained in their theological and phenomenological sense: If miracles are (or were) real, then they have been directed by the Deity. If they have been directed by the Deity, then they were performed within that particular cultural context (time, place, etc.) for a reason, presumably as part of some greater story. And, if they occurred for a particular place and time, then they are not repeatable.

This is relevant, as it makes them statistically undetectable and experimentally untestable, but not necessarily any less real. They simply move from the realm of the natural sciences to the realm of the social sciences. In this realm, their entire context must be taken into consideration, including the context of the witnesses.

It is still possible that their occurrence is bogus, but it must be recognized as possible that their occurrence isn't. Honestly, when placed in the study of social sciences, even their non-occurrence may mean something theologically relevant.

The Value of Mythic and Poetic Language in Scripture

The problem is that both sides attempt to argue from a natural sciences standpoint. And in this realm, Rick Warren is severely disadvantaged. There are many faithful Christians who believe that Genesis (esp. ch. 1-11) is primarily mythic poetry, that while borrowing from similar tales in other cultures, is still transformed to say something real and true about the relationship between God, humanity and Creation.

It is helpful here to note, that when I use the word "myth," I do not mean the popular understanding of the word as a story that's made up. Instead, myths are generally structured stories which often call on a variety of sources and often are transmitted orally before being written down. Such stories often convey a deeper human truth. It makes sense to me that if God has revealed Himself to humanity through the stories in scripture, then he would use the cultural tools available to both reach as wide an audience as possible and maintain relevance over a long period of time. These tools would include poetry, wisdom sayings, songs, mythic stories, biographies, etc. I see no reason why He would be constrained to modern notions regarding scientific or historic accuracy, as these things have not been a major concern for humanity during most of its history.

But Rick doesn't acknowledge this. He simply says he believes in the literal reading of Genesis and doesn't back that claim up in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

The Differences Between Faith, Belief, and Dogma

Additionally, Sam seems to understand faith as the opposite of reason, and faith and dogma as equivalent. He questions why God would allow someone, born within a tradition, to be punished for believing that tradition. Rick doesn't challenge him on this, but I will. I would argue that dogma is defined as an immovable position which disregards any subsequent discovery or fact. Faith, on the other hand is much more malleable.

In fact, faith even maintains room for doubt! If you notice, almost every major "hero" of the faith in the OT has doubts at some time or another (Job, Moses, Gideon, Elijah, Jonah, the writers of half the Psalms, etc.). In each case, God never punishes the doubter. Instead, the doubter comes out stronger for the experience.

For the person born in their own tradition, they are not judged because they don't believe in Jesus (especially if they have never encountered Him). They are judged according to how they faithfully adhered to their understanding of goodness. Scripture tells us that every human being betrays that understanding eventually, and that makes our reconciliation with God (through Christ) most necessary.

Faith is better defined then, not as belief in defiance of reason, but instead as trust founded on reason, experience, and revelation. One may question their beliefs continuously, and still remain faithful. In fact, whenever new situations, knowledge, or experiences arise, it makes sense to question our assumptions. And this is absolutely OK, and I would argue, is a sign of wisdom. However, I have still found reason to have faith, and because of this, I will do my best to be faithful.

My Further Thoughts on These Issues

Note: To give a bit of background on my opinion. I am a Christian, and I believe in the God whose attributes include transcendence, imminence, and goodness. I believe God is, and has been, active in the cosmos. And I believe in objective truth. However, I also understand that truth and fact are often different things.

There is allegorical truth, poetic truth, wisdom-truth, ethical truth, etc. But in the realm of fact, there is scientific and historical fact. I do believe truth needs to be informed and understood in terms of scientific and historical fact, but I do not believe that truth needs to rest entirely within the realm of fact.

In my own study, I have come to the conclusion that the bodily resurrection of Jesus fits into the realm of historical and scientific fact, and therefore the theological truths I arrive at are anchored in this. This is rooted in my understanding that the gospel accounts are for the most part reliable, at least in regards to his teaching, miracles, death, and resurrection (a complete analysis of this viewpoint would require its own post). And as a result of this conclusion, my theology rests along the same lines as the rest of orthodox Christianity. However, this does not mean EVERY story in the bible can be treated in the same way, or that every story should be treated as literally, historically accurate.

I think that in order to tell the difference, we use experiential, structural (to the scriptural passage), traditional (contextual), and reasonable (scientific, historical, philosophical) methods to arrive at our conclusions. Because we arrive at different conclusions, theological debate becomes a worthwhile exercise. However, I also believe that such differences of interpretation are not grounds for discrimination or hate, as Jesus' teaching makes clear.

The problem with the above debate is that neither side really devotes sufficient energy to using these methods to arrive at truth. In my final analysis I think Sam did better and "won" the debate. However, even his arguments were insufficient to turn me away from my conclusions. I do not think that this is due to an "unreasonable" attitude on my part.

The Problem of a God Who Allows Suffering

Someone asked me, if God were real, why would He allow kids to be born with birth defects (and finished with saying, "thanks imaginary god.") It bothered me, not just because he was challenging my beliefs. After all, our beliefs should be challenged and tested by the force of reason and experience, otherwise they're probably not worth anything.

But what bothered me was that he had a valid point. Why would a good God allow kids to suffer, like in the article below? Why do so many human beings seem to live a loveless, harsh, and suffering existence only to die at the end of it?

I've been thinking about it a lot. I think the only acceptable solution is one that fully recognizes the reality of suffering in the world and doesn't try to mitigate or minimize it. Suffering in the human condition is real, it is deep, and it is often relentless.

So, this is what I'm thinking currently: Our conception of God rests on our understanding of "the Ideal." The ideal varies from culture to culture, and over periods of time, but almost universally includes the concepts, "the Good, the Transcendent, and the Imminent." A concept of God worth engaging by human beings (whether in prayer, worship, or just simple awe and joy), must include these three (and yet is infinitely more than these) concepts. But how could an imminent (involved deeply in the details of the cosmos) and good God allow such undeserved suffering?

Well, if God is real, good, imminent, and transcendent and has created us for relationship with Him, then relationship requires free will. And if free will is not an illusion, it must be probabilistic and not deterministic in nature. By it's very definition, the existence of probability introduces an element of chaos into the cosmos. This chaotic element, would then introduce harsh realities into all of life's experience (and not just human), which would be experienced as suffering.  And free will opens the possibility for us to choose disharmony over harmony, and betrayal over trust.  If trust, in turn, is the foundation for all human relationships (including those with each other, with God, and with creation), then it leaves us in a completely broken state.  Brokenness leads to confusion, and in that confusion, it is no wonder we are unable to perceive God clearly on our own.

This does not compromise God's goodness, as God's goodness is manifest in everything created. Evil (and its cousin, suffering) are not created things, but are a warping or corruption of what is created, as a consequence both of the abuse of free will and the role of chaos in allowing both free will and a lack of total determinism in the cosmos. But the beauty and mystery of God's goodness, is that in His desire to preserve the will, and enable relationship, He suffers with us. He feels the pain of every dying child, of every victim of abuse. He feels our hurt, confusion, and rage.

Christ's Incarnation (God taking humanity onto Himself in Christ) ensures that He takes part in our suffering., His death on the cross is the ultimate expression of this as He takes all the pain, suffering, and brokenness in the world into Himself. His resurrection is the ultimate triumph over suffering and the hope of our triumph, as well. Finally, the Holy Spirit's continued presence in a broken and hurting world feeds the hope and propels its fulfillment forward, even in the face of inexpressible sorrow.  And it is through the Incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ that we experience the hope of reparation and restoration.

I understand if people don't see it the same way I do, and I don't blame them. But these are just my thoughts as I grapple with the realities of our existence.

P.S. Some further thoughts on the attributes of God expressed in, "the Good, the Transendant, and the Imminent." We can envision these attributes, and we all have different ideas about them, but we also all agree that outside of concepts concerning God, there are no perfect expressions of the Good, or the Transcendent, or the Imminent in human experience.

This tells me that the argument that our concept of God is simply anthropomorphic projection and nothing more, is not valid. If God simply reflected anthropocentric tendencies in our species, as necessary for our survival, then our concept of Him would not rest on attributes which are utterly unattainable by any created being. ‪#‎GodProblems‬ ‪#‎Suffering‬

Daily Mail Article: 'I Can't Cuddle My Son Because It Makes His Skin Fall Off,' A Mother's Anguish at Her Son's Suffering