Miracles seem to occur all throughout the bible. Jesus’ resurrection, the turning of water into wine, the splitting of the red sea, Jonah surviving inside a whale, Hercules inhuman strength, Daniel surviving inside a den of hungry lions, the list goes on. I’m not quite sure as Christians we should jump to an immediate yes. Before answering the truth quality of miracles, what is the substantial quality of a miracle? What makes a miracle a miracle and what exactly is it? On the one hand, miracles are the suspension of natural law. On this view, God intervenes in distinct moments or periods of time, suspending or breaking the natural forces of the universe that govern the way it functions. God is reaching in from outside of the box, the box being of course, the physical and mental universe.
On the other hand, miracles are not the suspension of natural law, but merely extremely “improbable occurrences” that occur in distinct moments in time that God has planned for. This is distinct from C.S. Lewis’s chance view, in which our thoughts are the results of random processes like the through of a dice, because if you accept determinism or pre-determinism, there are no random processes. Even seemingly random miracles are predestined improbable events that are inevitable. This view where miracles are improbable unlikely coincidences of nature prima facia depends on one having a naturalistic view where everything comes from natural law, and in believing in the principle of Uniformity. The principle of Uniformity states that the universe behaves the same way regardless of whether it is under observation, in both the past, present and future. Put another way, if I drop an apple, I expect it to fall, and not float upwards. Without the principle of Uniformity, to say that a miracle is improbable makes not sense, since probability cannot exist in a random universe where the principle of Uniformity does not apply. And I think we have good reason to think that it must apply if we are to take the second “improbable coincidence” view of miracles, since it also accepts a deterministic understanding of the universe. Under this view, miracles are unlikely natural events that occur within the box of the universe when natural law aligns in a certain way. The view fundamentally differs from the former, because it makes clear that we cannot hypothesize the likelihood of the box of the universe receiving intervention from something outside of the box, when all our conceptions of probability are founded on the basis of our reality as beings existing inside this box.
I would note here that even though I accept the principle of uniformity as necessary for the “improbable coincidence” view, I reject David Hume’s interpretation of probability as the majority vote of our past experiences, where the more often something has been known to happen in the past, the more often it should happen again. If Hume meant “should” as in it is objectively more likely, he commits the gamblers fallacy. If Hume meant “should” as in the person that has experienced x in the past is biased towards believing x in the future, then he is admitting the gamblers fallacy, and I think there is nothing wrong with that.
One common objection to what I’ve started calling the “improbable coincidence” view of miracles since I started writing this blog is that it reduces God’s sovereignty; that it is somehow demeaning of God if his miracles are not suspensions of natural law, and merely pre-destined occurrences of natural law to work in a particularly improbable way at a particular time. I fail to understand this line of thinking. Consider these natural explanations for the 10 plagues that God set upon pharaoh for refusing to free the Israelites as slaves. The first plague, where the Nile turned to blood, could have been caused by a red algae bloom, making the water toxic and killing fish. The second plague of frogs might have occurred as frogs left the toxic waters, leading to an infestation in homes. The third plague, involving lice, fleas, or gnats, could have resulted from the death of frogs, which normally prey on these insects, causing their populations to explode. The fourth plague, often interpreted as wild beasts, could refer to swarms of flies or wild animals linked to a climate disturbance. The fifth plague, diseased livestock, might have been caused by a disease similar to rinderpest, decimating livestock populations. The sixth plague of boils could have been an outbreak of smallpox or another infectious disease, possibly worsened by insect bites from the previous plagues. The seventh plague of fiery hail might be explained by a volcanic eruption on Santorini, which could have mixed ash with thunderstorms, resulting in a dramatic hailstorm with fiery lightning. The eighth plague of locusts could have been fostered by weather anomalies from the volcanic eruption, leading to a devastating infestation. The ninth plague of darkness could have been caused by a solar eclipse or volcanic ash from the Santorini eruption. Finally, the tenth plague, the killing of the firstborn, might have been due to grain contaminated by mycotoxins from the red algae bloom, leading to the death of those who consumed it first, likely including many firstborn Egyptian children.
Another objection might be that if there are things that we cannot explain and they are intended by God, miracles can’t be improbable coincidences when natural law works in a particular way, but actual interventions from God. This objection I also reject, for the reason that just because we cannot explain them now doesn’t mean we cannot explain them in the future. This applies for both true miracles intended by God, and miracles of the “supernatural” or “improbable coincidence” view.
I think part of the reason why some believers are hesitant to accept the “improbable coincidence” view of miracles is too much pride and not enough reflection on just how much we don’t know about science. I believe it is true what science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke famously said in his third law: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”(1962, Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible) As I’m writing this blog, it’s 2024 and jetpacks, flamethrowers, rockets all exist. All such technologies would have seemed indeed like magic if they were magically dropped in the renaissance, and even more so as magic should we go further back in time. The accepted scientific mosaic changes over time, with pieces of it constantly replaced and renewed; perhaps even advanced, if you accept that science does move closer to truth over time.
To me, the likelihood that these 10 plagues occurred in this exact order, at the exact time after pharaoh rejected Moses proposal, and each plague representing one of Egypt’s idol God’s is extremely small. I call these extremely unlikely occurrences miracles. The ten plagues in the story of Exodus each symbolically challenged the authority of a specific Egyptian god, demonstrating the supremacy of the God of Israel. The first plague, turning water to blood, targeted Hapi, the god of the Nile, showcasing God’s control over Egypt’s lifeblood. The second plague of frogs was an affront to Heket, the frog-headed goddess of fertility, water, and renewal. The third plague, lice from the dust, humiliated Geb, the god of the earth. The fourth plague of flies mocked Khepri, the god of creation and rebirth, often depicted with the head of a fly. The fifth plague, which struck down livestock, attacked Hathor, the goddess of love and protection, usually represented with the head of a cow. The sixth plague of boils challenged Isis, the goddess of medicine and peace, by directly inflicting physical suffering on the Egyptians. The seventh plague of hail demonstrated God’s power over the sky, countering Nut, the sky goddess. The eighth plague of locusts further illustrated the defeat of Seth, the god of storms and disorder. The ninth plague of darkness was a direct blow to Ra, the sun god, showing that God could extinguish even the greatest source of light and life in Egyptian belief. Finally, the tenth plague, the death of the firstborn, challenged Pharaoh himself, who was considered the greatest Egyptian god, the living embodiment of Ra on earth. Through these plagues, the God of Israel demonstrated ultimate authority over all aspects of Egyptian life and their pantheon of gods at the time. That is to say, just because an event is “merely” improbable and not a breaking of natural law does not diminish God’s power.
There is one very special exception. Jesus’s resurrection, and all of his miracles were a suspension of natural law, including those that led to his birth. Only these miracles belong to the first category of miracles, where natural law is itself broken. Here we run into a logical problem. Jesus is God, and only God can do miracles because he is intervening from outside the box of the universe, in which natural law governs reality. But at the same time, the natural law suspending/breaking miracles that Jesus performed were performed while he was wholly inside the box, because of the fact that he is fully human as well. How then, can a being inside the box break the rules inside the box? This is the mystery of the Trinity. This will deserve its own post later on. The resurrection in particular is a higher order of miracle than the ones Jesus performed. While one can argue that all points in time when Jesus existed as fully God and fully man is itself a miracle, the resurrection is the highest “order” of miracle because it takes the greatest power, and relies on the necessity of Jesus being fully God and fully man. It is the foundation to the Christian faith after all. But my point is that Jesus’s actions are true miracles. And among all of his actions, the resurrection is the highest order of miracle because it is not merely an intervention or breaking of natural law, but a reversal of causality. Since the Fall, causality moved linearly with the arrow of time towards death. The resurrection of Jesus is the single instance of a reversal of such causality. Lazarus and similar resurrections like that of the believers in Matthew 27:50-54 were temporary pauses and perhaps reversals of death, but unlike Jesus, they eventually died again before being reborn. When Jesus died and was resurrected, he ascended to the right hand of God the Father Almighty, never to die again. Hence, Jesus’s resurrection is the highest order of miracle, a reversal of causality and simultaneously an intervention of God from outside the universe to suspend Natural Law inside the box of the universe.
Four important points I want to make here. First, regardless of which perspective one takes on the nature of miracles, be they suspensions of natural law or improbable unlikelihoods, neither view reduces God. However, depending on whether you think the laws of nature are created structures to govern the universe, or God’s very nature itself is at least in part- made up of the laws of nature, one of these two views will seem more worthy.
Second, the Laws of Nature dictate how things in motion work and interact with each other, but they don’t set things in motion, free will does that. But if free will doesn’t exist, then even the things that are set in motion to operate under the Laws of Nature are not really set in motion, they are mere products that derive from previous events. Regardless of what free will is and if it exists as we exercise it within the constraints of the Laws of Nature, if we trace the events that occur under the Laws of Nature back to the very beginning, Laws of Nature never cause anything. Science advances knowledge of these patterns or Laws of Nature that govern how creation works, but the obvious question is where does actual creation come from? Creation is either created or exists by some other way. Viewing creation as created, we must also accept that God sustains creation at every moment. Viewing it as uncreated, we don’t have an answer for what it is or where it comes from, nor can we have an answer even as science advances. This is because as we have already established, the advancement of science is mere advancing in understanding of natural law, the patterns which operate inside creation. Thus, we must accept it as created. And not only that, we must accept that for us beings inside creation, we cannot use the patterns it operates under to understand its source.
Third, regardless of what view you take on what miracles are, one thing of note is that the people of history did not believe in miracles because they were misguided, or had not enough knowledge of science. Turning water into wine, walking on water, such miracles do not take a comprehension of the modern scientific mosaic to recognize that they are un-natural, or by the second view, improbable. To me, both are miracles.
Finally, I want to acknowledge that prima facia, the “improbable coincidence” view of miracles may open up room for an atheist to argue more broadly that God doesn’t exist. Their argument is: The improbable coincidence view must accept that all things are determined by God through natural law. Things that seem impossible to us are merely improbable, and given enough time, the things that seem merely improbable are actually inevitable. The problem they insist, is that miracles of this type can exist regardless of whether God exists. If God didn’t exist and we assume something else is responsible for the universe, so called miracles would refer to events that occur under natural law, and given enough time, even the most improbable event is inevitable.
The atheist here is making an existential objection on whether or not God exists, and not on the essence of miracles in terms of what they are, and the subsequent implications which I’ve been discussing. We are talking about essence, not existence. Miracles, not God’s existence. In fact, the atheist is not only forgetting the topic of debate, though there is debate left to be had on whether they are mistaking frequency of occurrence for an increased likelihood. While some might call this a reverse gamblers fallacy, some availability heuristic, I think the view that given infinite time, all naturally possible events are inevitable is consistent with the law of large of large numbers and the infinite monkey theorum, and true. More importantly, regardless of your view on probability, if over infinite time all things(including miracles) are inevitable by way of an uncreated universe, viewing it as uncreated, we don’t have an answer for what it is or where it comes from, nor can we have an answer even as science advances. Essentially, the atheist shifts the debate from the nature of miracles to existence, assumes God’s nonexistence, uses that to assert miracles are not miracles at all but products of nature, but is left without a leg to stand on to justify that assumption.
Having rejected the atheists argument, I now reject Lewis. While I admire Lewis as a philosopher and Christian, I do disagree with some of his views. In particular, he thinks miracles are supernatural interventions. As you might have surmised reading thus far, I’m of the view that they are “improbable occurrences.” Lewis thinks miracles are God reaching into the box of the universe from the outside; God is suspending or breaking natural law. He argues that science, more specifically naturalism, cannot prove existence or non-existence of miracles(pg 59: “I do not think that science has shown, or by its nature, could ever show that the miraculous element in religion is erroneous.” God in the Dock). He rejects naturalism, since it means conscious thought and actions are just inevitable random byprocesses, making belief in naturalism itself false. Therefore, naturalism is nonsensical. Lewis seems to assume that 1. Naturalism implies materialism 2. Naturalism is different from determinism.
On the first point, even if naturalism implies materialism, it’s not immediately clear that consciousness ceases to exist, especially if we define consciousness as having a soul that directs our actions, since Christians accept the existence of souls, even in this materialistic world. If naturalism does not imply materialism, Lewis’s argument that consciousness is reduced to inevitable random byprocesses, since we can have a world that is non random, and naturalistic(governed by natural law). In fact, I find this quite consistent, since I cannot see a world that is non random and not naturalistic. This is because I think there is nothing in between a non-random vs deterministic world. It is binary. Of course, one cannot just accept this, but it simply seems to me that, every deterministic world must be naturalistic, given that by definition the laws of nature must operate consistently over time. Recall that the deterministic thesis that past dictates future means the past dictates the future in all points of time, consistently over time. As we see, the second point is addressed as well.
Having undertaken this discussion on what miracles are and their quality of existence, I now shift my thought to why people believe in miracles of the second kind: “supernatural phenomena.” At first glance, it may seem counterintuitive to the natural state of humans. As humans, we like to make sense of things. Indeed, we call that curiosity. What we don’t understand, we fear, and naturally so, as what we don’t understand is what is most dangerous to us from an evolutionary perspective. But miracles of the “improbable occurrence” type, and even more so the “supernatural phenomena” type, are almost by definition things that we don’t understand. If we did, they wouldn’t be miracles. That explains why we would have motivation to understand what miracles are, but why believe them? Indeed, many do not, and people who don’t believe in the existence of miracles hold this view out of fear of accepting that there might be something they don’t understand that would necessitate changing their entire worldview. For those that do, it is simply our own mind accepting that there are patterns we can’t recognize, but most certainly exist. On some level, we already know this deep down. Consider the relation between our ability to analyze something and ability to experience something. When we are experiencing pain or pleasure, we cannot rationally analyze it. But when we are in the process of analyzing such emotions, we cannot experience it.
Personally, I’m of the first camp. Every miracle, excluding the singular resurrection of Jesus, obeys natural law/God’s character, and are simply the laws working in a way that we do not yet(or perhaps may never) understand, but are fully contained within the laws of the universe. The improbable occurrence view is to me the most consistent interpretation of miracles that allows for God’s predetermination and holding the uniformity of natural law as reflection of God’s uniform nature itself. And I restate: just because an event is “merely” improbable and not a breaking of natural law does not diminish God’s power. So the next time you witness something so outrageous it is hard to believe, have faith in knowing that whatever happened, indeed happened for a very good reason.