In
America, even Christians have been affected by a naturalistic
worldview, where the supernatural realm is treated as less “real”
than the natural realm. (Nathan & Wilson, 2009) The first
response when something miraculous happens can be to look for a
natural explanation and only concede that is “must be a miracle”
when no other explanation is found. Some philosophers believe that
miracles are philosophically problematic, stating that “They are
either impossible, or if possible, they can not be rationally
believed.” (p. 308, Cowan & Speigel, 2009) This paper will
examine possible objections and discuss why a belief in miracles does
not present a philosophical problem and can be held by a responsible,
reasonable person. First, the concept of “miracle” must be
defined, then possible objections will be considered, and finally a
case will be made for a belief in miracles.
First,
it is necessary to define what is meant by “miracle.” Although
any event that defies significant odds or defies natural laws and
scientific explanation is often called a miracle, the formal
definition used for this discussion will be “an even occurring in
the context of legitimate religious expectation that is so contrary
to the course of nature that the casual activity of God is the best
explanation for its occurrence.” (p. 309, Cowan & Speigel,
2009) Examples of this include things such as someone who receives
prayer and recovers sight or is healed from a fatal condition, the
parting of the Red Sea in the Old Testament, or most importantly,
Jesus’s resurrection from the dead. (Cowan & Speigel, 2009)
Events are not considered a miracle if a natural explanation is more
probable. Also “if it does not draw attention to God, it is not a
miracle.” (p.309, Cowan & Speigel, 2009) As a final note, this
definition does rely on an existence of God; while not discussed
here, several solid arguments for God's existence can be found in
Chapter 6 of Cowan and Speigel's The Love of Wisdom.
(2009)
The
first objection is that of Baruch Spinoza, who stated “miracles are
impossible because they constitute violations of the laws of nature.”
(p. 310, Cowan & Speigel, 2009) His argument comes from his
naturalistic viewpoint that the laws of nature are immutable and
constitute the highest truth. (Cowan & Speigel, 2009) This view
could pose a significant challenge to the belief in the existence of
miracles, if in fact, the laws of nature were in fact ultimate,
invariable truth. However, most naturalists consider the scientific
laws of nature to be “observed regularities,” but not sufficient
to rule out the existence of an omnipotent being. (p. 310, Cowan &
Speigel, 2009) Also, this objection fails to provide an alternate
explanation for the seemingly miraculous events that do occur. It
elevates natural laws the highest truth, while failing to provide an
explanation for seemingly miraculous events when they do happen. His
objection that “miracles would require the immutable laws to be
mutable,” would seem self-defeating as it would to also be saying
“if events that defy the laws of nature exist, natural laws are not
immutable.” (p. 310, Cowan & Speigel, 2009) The existence of
these seemingly miraculous events will be discussed later.
David Hume offers a second objection that “one could never have
enough evidence to justify believing that one occurred.” (p. 311,
Cowan & Speigel, 2009) His belief is that “since a wise person
always believes what is more probable, he will always refuse to
believe that a miracle has occurred.” ( p. 311, Cowan &
Speigel, 2009) Hume is correct in his assessment that most people do
not experience miracles on a regular basis; therefore, on a given
day, it is more probable to expect that no miracle will occur. It
would also seem reasonable to infer that Hume has never experienced a
miracle; based on his experience, the probability of a miracle
occurring is close to 0%. It may be a bit of a stretch, but it could
also seem reasonable to expect that Hume has not made considerable
effort to consider the evidence with an open mind. Christian author,
C.S. Lewis stated “We know the experience against [miracles] to be
uniform only if we know that all reports of them are false. And we
know all the reports are false only if we know already that miracles
have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle.” (p.311,
Cowan & Speigel, 2009) Put simply, miracles either occur or they
don't; if a miracle has ever occurred, then miracles exist. There is
good evidence to believe that miracles have occurred: “First, that
Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies of a coming Messiah and
that his miracles were confirmation that in him the Messiah had
arrived, was regarded by first- and second century apologists as the
strongest argument for Christianity. Second, if one cares to look,
there are many well-evidenced present-day accounts of events that
appear to merit being called miracles. It is irresponsible to ignore
both the witness of the early Church and contemporary accounts of
miracles.” (p. 267, Larmer, 2011) It seems that Hume has been
trapped in what Rich Nathan describes as the “Two rules of all
paradigms: 1.We do not see what we ‘know’ should not be there. 2.
If we do see, we constantly try to fit what we see into existing
assumptions (we see what we want to see or at least what we think we
should see).” (p.73, 2009) So, it seems that Hume’s argument may
not be as strong as he would hope.
Additionally, the objection is offered that “we should not believe
it to be a miracle because science may someday be able to give a
natural explanation for it.” (p. 312, Cowan & Speigel, 2009)
Again, it is necessary to consider the facts. The definition of
“miracle” used here is “within the context of religious
expectation,” so the context is important. Was the person praying
or receiving prayer for the miracle to happen? Was the person
desperately in need on help and crying out to God? If so, then we
avoid making the “God-of-the- gaps” fallacy (simply using
supernatural intervention as an explanation for whatever we can’t
explain) and conclude that the best explanation is that “God did
it.” (p.312, Cowan & Speigel, 2009) If miracles were limited to
only to restoration of a physical body, then one could possibly argue
that there could be a psychological element that has not been
discovered yet; however, other type of miracles occur, such as the
resurrection of Christ. Also, entire books have been written on the
subject of Christian healing, such as John Wimber’s book Power
Healing and eye witness and personal accounts of God’s
miraculous provision and healings provided in Rolland and Heidi
Baker’s Always Enough. (Wimber & Springer, 2009;
Baker & Baker, 2003) Such accounts and explanations do not seem
to exist outside of the context of religious expectation. John Wimber
explains that “Christian signs and wonders are beyond rationality,
but they serve a rational purpose: to authenticate the gospel…It is
a relationship that can be described and understood.” (p.156,
Wimber, 2009) Does it make sense to reject an explanation that is
readily available in favor of the possibility of a future (yet
currently non-existent) explanation?
To add to Wimber’s explanation, according to a Christian worldview,
Jesus set an example of expecting the miraculous. Howard Marshall
explains that “Jesus does something unusual, generally by
performing healings of various human disorders…the stories of Jesus
have him healing and restoring people simply by uttering or saying a
command that has an instantaneous effect.” (p.62, 2004) According
to Australian archeologist Clifford Wilson, “Those [archeologists]
who know he facts now recognize that the New Testament must be
accepted must be accepted as a remarkably accurate source book;”
meaning that archeological findings have strongly supported the
accounts of the New Testament. (p. 107, Strobel, 1998) With this in
mind, Jesus also sets the example for other types of miracles such as
the multiplication of 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish to feed 5,000
people. (Matthew 14, NIV) Therefore, it does not appear that the
belief in miracles is irresponsibly held as an explanation simply
because no other viable explanation exists; the Bible, which is
strongly supported by evidence, provides a foundation for a belief in
miracles.
Finally, Hume presents a seemingly contradictory argument that if
miracles do exist and are used to support all
religions, then they “cancel each other out.” (p. 313, Cowan &
Speigel, 2009) Cowan & Speigel refute this argument by pointing
out that evidence of miracles related to religions besides
Christianity is “weak or non-existent.” (p.313, 2009) Also,
evidence for the central miracle claim of Christianity, Jesus’s
resurrection, is very strong; in fact many early Christians came to
believe for this very reason. (p. 314, Cowan & Speigel, 2009;
Larmer, 2011) In his book, The Next Christendom, Philip
Jenkins describes the growth of Christianity in the non-western
world. He states “From the earliest days of European missions, the
promise of healing was at the heart of Christian successes…Today,
rising African churches stand or fall by the success of their
healing.” (p.145, Jenkins, 2007) For the church to have success in
healing, means that healings occur; for the church to grow as a
result of Christian healing means that it offers something more than
people are experiencing in their native religion. Effectively, the
healing ministries provide validation for people to reject their
former beliefs in favor of Christianity. Therefore, it appears that
the miracles to do not “cancel each other out” as Hume suggests.
Now that the objections to a belief in miracles have been discussed,
it is important to consider the evidence for why a belief in miracles
is not only not problematic, but why a belief in miracles is
essential to a Christian worldview. While many Christians do pray for
and experience miracles, in America “evangelical Christians have
been taught to interpret the world naturalistically.” (p.68, Nathan
& Wilson, 2009) The American worldview has also been affected by
rationalism, which “ seeks a rational explanation for all
experience, making reason the chief guide of all matters in life”
and by secularism, which makes the assumption that “we live in a
material universe closed off from divine intervention, in which truth
is arrived at only through empirical means and rational thought.”
(p.134-135, Wimber& Springer, 2009) This means that often as a
result of culture, Christians are taught to give more credence to
things that can be logically explained or scientifically proven. This
can be problematic: “In practical terms, the belief in spiritual
powers has the most direct impact in terms of healing through
spiritual means”(p.145, Jenkins, 2009) or as Vineyard pastor and
theologian Derek Morphew explained in a Vineyard Leadership Institute
lecture, “to the extent we have Kingdom expectation, we can enter
the Kingdom.” (By “Kingdom,” Morphew was referring to God
intervening, including events such as healings or people being set
free from internal oppression.) This means that belief or “religious
expectation” has a casual relationship with the results experienced
in terms of supernatural intervention (events that occur in contrast
to natural laws or natural expectation).
In contrast to evangelical American Christianity, “the majority of
the people of the world, in fact, not only believe in the
supernatural, but experience it. “ (p. 57, McNutt, 2009) In
contrast to the typical mainline American church, “The power of the
Holy Spirit to heal and deliver is being seen not only in Africa. In
China, the number of Christians is growing exponentially, largely in
churches that attract people by signs and wonders demonstrated on a
regular basis. As in the early church, ordinary people interpret the
Bible literally and have no intellectual problem casting out evil
spirits and asking Jesus to heal the sick. (p.15, McNutt, 2009) If
such healings are happening on a “regular basis,” at what point
are they no longer considered merely and “exception” to the
rules? Wouldn’t it be philosophically problematic to believe that
different rules apply to people in China and Africa than people here
in the U.S.? Or, would it be more logical to consider the explanation
that the occurrence of events that defy natural laws (miracles) are
directly related to the expectation that such events will occur
(religious expectation)? If the two are related, then what is the
explanation for the relationship? Christian theology provides a
thoughtful explanation for the purpose of miracles; Normal Geisler
provides the explanation that “From a human vantage point a
miracle, then, is an unusual event (“wonder”) that conveys and
confirms an unusual message (“sign”) by means of unusual
power…from a divine vantage point a miracle is an act of God….that
attracts the attention of the people of God (“wonder”) to the
Word of God (by a “sign”). (pp. 308-309, Cowan & Speigel,
2009) Miracles exist to point people to God.
In conclusion, it is my opinion that miracles are not
philosophically problematic, but a necessary part of a Christian
worldview. If we desire to see miracles, then we must seek faith to
see the Lord intervene in “out of the ordinary” ways. For me,
this means spending time with the Lord, spending time learning about
and objectively considering teachings of people who experience
miracles today, and being obedient to the Lord by praying for those
who are sick or in crisis. We must renew our minds through scripture
and time spent with the Lord and other believers with a Biblical
worldview; “faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of
Christ.” (Romans 10:17 NASB) To deny that miracles exist would be
to deny the both Jesus’s works and His resurrection; if we deny the
resurrection of Christ, we deny our salvation. To deny that miracles
exist today, means not only to deny the works of Jesus that occur
today, but also means adding restrictions that were never included in
scripture. Furthermore, if the intervention of the Holy Spirit on
natural order (miracle) is dependent upon religious expectation
(faith), then actively choosing to believe or promote a theology that
teaches that miracles do not exist today quenches the work of the
Holy Spirit, which is sin. (1 Thessalonians 5:19) Therefore, as
Christians, it is necessary to consider both evidence and scripture
as we seek guidance from the Holy Spirit to ensure we hold a Biblical
view of miracles. There is sufficient evidence to claim that a belief
in miracles is rational and responsible and not at all problematic.
Resources:
Baker, Rolland & Heidi. (2003) Always Enough. Grand
Rapids: Chosen Books. (Kindle Edition)
Cowan, Steven B. & Spiegel, James S.
(2009). The Love of Wisdom. Nashville: B&H Publishing
Group.
Jenkins, Philip. (2007) The
Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity.
New York: Oxford University
Press
Larmer, R. (2011). Miracles, Divine Agency, and the Laws of Nature.
Toronto Journal Of Theology, 27(2), 267-290. doi:10.3138/tjt.27.2.267
MacNutt, Francis. (2009) Deliverance from Evil Spirits: A
Practical Manual. Grand Rapids:
Chosen Publishers
Marshall, I. Howard. (2004). New Testament Theology. Downer's
Grove, IL: IVP Academic.
Morphew,
Derek Ph.D. and Robbins, Steve Ph.D. (Oct 2 &3, 2010) Healing
1: Physical Afflictions. Vineyard Leadership
Institute Lecture
Nathan, Rich and
Wilson, Ken. (2009) Empowered Evangelicals: Bringing Together the
Best of the Evangelical and Charismatic Worlds.
Boise: Ampelon Publishing
Strobel,
Lee. (1998) The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal
Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.
Wimber,
John and Spinger, Kevin. (2009) Power Evangelism. Ventura,
CA: Regal Pubishers
Wimber,
John and Springer, Kevin. (1987) Power
Healing. New
York: Harper Collins
