Miracles - always and never

[justa_gurl]

Non-believers, lend me your cerebral cortexes.

I'd like to hear your definitions of 'Miracle'. Not the definitions of believers but your own, secular ideas. I'd also like to hear if you - based on your definition - believe they:

1) always happen
2) never happen
3) sometimes happen
4) or other

I'm just curious whether or not we have common thoughts on the concept.
Thank you much!

 

[Pah]

...
I'd like to hear your definitions of 'Miracle'. Not the definitions of believers but your own, secular ideas. I'd also like to hear if you - based on your definition - believe they:
....
4) or other

A miracle is something waiting for a scientific explanation

 

[justa_gurl]

A miracle is something waiting for a scientific explanation

hmm.. i'd agree but there's some room left in everything for scientific explanation. If that were the case, wouldn't everything be a miracle, still awaiting a full explaination on both a mirco and a macro level?

 

[michel]

I'm not sure if I qualify as a non-believer; to me a miracle is something that happens that is above our area of comprehension.


Bonsoir!

 

[Ormiston]

Non-believers, lend me your cerebral cortexes.

I'd like to hear your definitions of 'Miracle'. Not the definitions of believers but your own, secular ideas. I'd also like to hear if you - based on your definition - believe they:

1) always happen
2) never happen
3) sometimes happen
4) or other

I'm just curious whether or not we have common thoughts on the concept.
Thank you much!

I believe in miracles. I think that one element of a miracle is coincidence. A miracle can't simply be a "Godly Act", it has to have some meaningful purpose to those it involves (this is just the way I look at it). And, secondly, it has to be an event of the most unlikely (unlikely, not impossible) nature. I don't believe in miracles of the Biblical type if the inference is that God did something for a reason. The event may be believable, but Gods influence is not.

 

[MatCauthorn]

If someone has no belief in a God or gods, and they posit a completely natural (i.e. - not supernatural) universe, then there is no such thing as a miracle, in the sense of something which occurs which has no explanation (and is usually good). Instead, there are things which occurred by a mechanism we do not yet understand, or things which happened for reasons we do not understand.

An example would be a caveman who is about to be eaten by a bear, when an earthquake occurs and scares the bear away. The caveman has no knowledge of plate tectonics, so he might see that event as a miracle, when it wasn't.

Another example is a group of soldiers pinned down by enemy fire behind a building. They are running low on ammunition and face certain death or capture. As they expend their last shots, a bomber flies overhead and drops its strategically-placed payload, allowing the soldiers to escape. The soldiers might see this as a miracle, whereas the bomber pilot sees it merely as carrying out his mission, and the general sees it as his men carrying out his orders.

-- Mat

 

[Ormiston]

If someone has no belief in a God or gods, and they posit a completely natural (i.e. - not supernatural) universe, then there is no such thing as a miracle, in the sense of something which occurs which has no explanation (and is usually good). Instead, there are things which occurred by a mechanism we do not yet understand, or things which happened for reasons we do not understand.

An example would be a caveman who is about to be eaten by a bear, when an earthquake occurs and scares the bear away. The caveman has no knowledge of plate tectonics, so he might see that event as a miracle, when it wasn't.

Another example is a group of soldiers pinned down by enemy fire behind a building. They are running low on ammunition and face certain death or capture. As they expend their last shots, a bomber flies overhead and drops its strategically-placed payload, allowing the soldiers to escape. The soldiers might see this as a miracle, whereas the bomber pilot sees it merely as carrying out his mission, and the general sees it as his men carrying out his orders.

-- Mat

I think both of your examples, if not miracles by Webster's Dictionary, are damn close to the same thing. In my mind, the exact same thing.

 

[justa_gurl]

to me a miracle is something that happens that is above our area of comprehension.

Ah.. like Donald Trump's comb-over. That's a miracle alright.

…it has to have some meaningful purpose to those it involves (this is just the way I look at it).

Absolutely, good point. Yet, contracting a rare disease has meanginful purpose but is seldomly considered a 'miracle'. There must be not only meaning but a sort of positive meaning taken from the event?

And, secondly, it has to be an event of the most unlikely (unlikely, not impossible) nature.

Here's where things get tricky.. what is impossible? Which brings me to Mat's point..

If someone has no belief in a God or gods, and they posit a completely natural (i.e. - not supernatural) universe, then there is no such thing as a miracle, in the sense of something which occurs which has no explanation (and is usually good).

Yes, but this can be reversed. [/stands on her head > Try looking at it like this..

Let's say that a miracle is something that exceeds or goes beyond the natural order of things. [font=&quot]Believers can see nothing as impossible because god, the ruler and 'glue' of our universe is limitless. What could logically be miraculous or exceed that order? The 'miraculous' would essentially be the norm and the default state of everything, just the usual expressions of a limitless rule keeper. Non-believers on the other hand, base their ideas of possibility according to a sort of 'natural law' and based on our understanding of physics. Since we are finite in knowledge, things can and do regularly exceed our perceptions of that order. So you could say then that to the non-theists, everything is a touch of the miraculous.

[/font]

 

[michel]

Absolutely.

 

[Ormiston]

Ah.. like Donald Trump's comb-over. That's a miracle alright.

Absolutely, good point. Yet, contracting a rare disease has meanginful purpose but is seldomly considered a 'miracle'. There must be not only meaning but a sort of positive meaning taken from the event?

I agree with this.

Here's where things get tricky.. what is impossible? Which brings me to Mat's point..

Yes, but this can be reversed. [/stands on her head > Try looking at it like this..

Let's say that a miracle is something that exceeds or goes beyond the natural order of things. [font=&quot]Believers can see nothing as impossible because god, the ruler and 'glue' of our universe is limitless. What could logically be miraculous or exceed that order? The 'miraculous' would essentially be the norm and the default state of everything, just the usual expressions of a limitless rule keeper. Non-believers on the other hand, base their ideas of possibility according to a sort of 'natural law' and based on our understanding of physics. Since we are finite in knowledge, things can and do regularly exceed our perceptions of that order. So you could say then that to the non-theists, everything is a touch of the miraculous.

[/font]

This I'm not so sure I do believe. My reasoning is this: Everyone is familiar with the miracles that Jesus performed. Even if we believe that there is a scientific explanation, they are still miracles (the results speak for themselves so to say). You can't disprove them. They've already occured and now it's a matter of faith as to whay actually occured.

 

[Engyo]

Non-believer in what?

Miracles are in the eye of the beholder. What might seem a miracle to me may seem commonplace to you, and vice versa. If you believe it is a miracle, it is - FOR YOU. I may not interpret the situation the same way; but that's OK.

 

[michel]

Non-believer in what?

Miracles are in the eye of the beholder. What might seem a miracle to me may seem commonplace to you, and vice versa. If you believe it is a miracle, it is - FOR YOU. I may not interpret the situation the same way; but that's OK.

Namaste.

I like that. fruballs to you my friend.

 

[michel]

You must spread some Karma around before giving it to Engyo again.

​

:banghead3 Sorry, you'll have to go in the 'pending' basket!

 

[MatCauthorn]

Let's say that a miracle is something that exceeds or goes beyond the natural order of things.

Let's.

If this is our definition of a miracle, then nothing is miraculous for someone who doesn't believe in the supernatural. To be both clear and confusing - naturalists believe that everything that happens, can happen. Even if something is confusing to us, or does not fit our current view of the universe, that doesn't mean it's miraculous.

Consider the experiments of Louis Pasteur when searching for germs. The general public did not believe in germs - they believed that disease was caused by spontaneous generation. So, Pasteur undertook experiments to show that this was not the case. When he boiled broth and left it sitting out in an open beaker, it spoiled. However, when he boiled broth and put it in a container with a long, curved neck (so that no dust and dirt could fall in) the broth remained unspoiled.

For many people, this was an amazing discovery, and certainly outside their everyday experience. They might even have said that it "went beyond the natural order of things," which was that broth spoils due to spontaneous generation. However, it was not miraculous that the broth remained unspoiled - it was due to observable rules of science. Naturalists believe that *everything* operates according to rules of science, even when those rules are strange (as in things like quantum theory, which at first appear to contradict reason).

[font=&quot]Since we are finite in knowledge, things can and do regularly exceed our perceptions of that order.[/font]

[font=&quot]
[/font]
The key word here is "perceptions." Naturalists believe that, while we may not yet understand a particular phenomena, that does not mean that it is miraculous. It just means we don't understand it yet.

[font=&quot]So you could say then that to the non-theists, everything is a touch of the miraculous.[/font]

I wouldn't say so. It would be more correct, I think, to say that naturalists might be amazed by something which happens and which they cannot explain (say, a fantastic magician's trick, or an incident of ball lightning, or an uncanny coincidence) but they don't doubt for a minute that it has an explanation. Does that make it less amazing? I think people's answers would vary.

You are correct, though, that theists see nothing as impossible, because God is omnipotent. Most theists, I'm sure, believe that the rules of physics govern everyday interactions, but that those rules can always be overcome by God's will (God causes water to become wine, God causes a wafer to become the body of Christ, God causes a dead person to live again, etc.).

 

[justa_gurl]

Thanks for the replies everyone, sorry i haven't been able to get back to you sooner.

So miracles are subjective, Engyo?

[font=&quot]
[/font]
The key word here is "perceptions." Naturalists believe that, while we may not yet understand a particular phenomena, that does not mean that it is miraculous. It just means we don't understand it yet.

But i thought the miraculous WAS something we don't understand yet. Oh bother..

I speak in circles you'll have to forgive me. You're right not to agree. Mental gymnastics are my thing, a way for me to test where the rules can be broken. </giggles] So now, let's see where we can agree..

• The natural is our known, visible, observable universe and it's percieved laws. Yes?
• For all of us, believer and non-believer, theist and non-theist, there is an element of the 'beyond-natural', things and events which have no natural explaination. agreed?
• For something to be considered a miracle or 'beyond-natural', there must be a sort of 'line of possibility' in order to know what transcends tha natural and what is itself natural. in other words, you need to know what's natural to know what is considered beyond it. with me so far?
• This percieved 'line of possibility' drawn between the natural and what's beyond it, tends to differ between theists and non-theists. Would you agree?

For example, transubstantiation. For the believer, it is possible. Why? because their 'natural' world contains elements a non-theists would not; a sort of god-power inherent in it (spirit if you will), which allows for seemingly contradictory things to happen within their 'natural' guidlines. Prayers being heard and returned is another such example. Even though it remains mystery, it is still very much a part of their natural world and commonly utilized. In other words, 'strange things' are typical, even expected.

A non-theists 'natural' world, in contrast, is not as open to these types of possibilities and doesn't typically leave room for such events to take place. Nature to the non-theist is goverened by a more strict sense of the tern and has very defined limits as far as what can be considered possible or likely. Yet, if you think about it, it's not very wise for the sceptic or scientist to negate any possibilities, no matter how small.

So you almost have to wonder. Who's really more open to the possibility of events occuring beyond our natural understanding? The theists who have a very broad scope on what's natural or the non-theists who have a very narrow one.

pretend graph:
theist
[(|||||||||||||||| natural - god included |||||||||||||||) ..b-n.. ]
non-theist
[(||||natural||||) ..............beyond-natural ............................]

i'm such a dweeb, anyone have a life i can borrow?

 

[MatCauthorn]

For all of us, believer and non-believer, theist and non-theist, there is an element of the 'beyond-natural', things and events which have no natural explaination. agreed?

I do not agee, and I think this where we're getting derailed. For the non-theist / naturalist there is nothing which is beyond natural because the natural world is everything, and everything is within the natural world. There may be things which are confusing, or are not yet adequately explained within the natural world, but that does not make them miraculous - it just makes them unexplained.

Think about lightning. Lightning must have seemed miraculous to the caveman. But it isn't - it's the interaction of charged electric particles in the clouds and the earth.

Perhaps you're trying to suggest that anything we don't understand is miraculous...? I wouldn't agree with that, but if that is your view, then I can understand what you're saying.

For example, transubstantiation. For the believer, it is possible. ... Even though it remains mystery, it is still very much a part of their natural world and commonly utilized. In other words, 'strange things' are typical, even expected.

Just because someone believes something to be a certain way doesn't mean that it is. Consider Douglas Adams' Electric Monk:

From "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency," by Douglas Adams:

"The Monk currently believed that the valley and everything in the valley and around it, including the Monk itself and the Monk's horse, was a uniform shade of pale pink. This made for a certain difficulty in distinguishing any one thing from any other thing, and therefore made doing anything anything or going anywhere impossible, or at least difficult and dangerous. Hence the immobility of the Monk and the boredom of the horse, which had had to put up with a lot of silly things in its time but was secretly in the opinion that this was one of the silliest."

So you almost have to wonder. Who's really more open to the possibility of events occuring beyond our natural understanding?

Being open to the possibility of such things? If you're speaking only of a belief claim, then theists, to be sure, since naturalists believe everything to be withing our natural understanding.

i'm such a dweeb, anyone have a life i can borrow?

Nope, sorry. Haven't had one for years.

-- Mat

 

[Ormiston]

I do not agee, and I think this where we're getting derailed. For the non-theist / naturalist there is nothing which is beyond natural because the natural world is everything, and everything is within the natural world. There may be things which are confusing, or are not yet adequately explained within the natural world, but that does not make them miraculous - it just makes them unexplained.

Think about lightning. Lightning must have seemed miraculous to the caveman. But it isn't - it's the interaction of charged electric particles in the clouds and the earth.

Perhaps you're trying to suggest that anything we don't understand is miraculous...? I wouldn't agree with that, but if that is your view, then I can understand what you're saying.

Just because someone believes something to be a certain way doesn't mean that it is. Consider Douglas Adams' Electric Monk:

From "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency," by Douglas Adams:

"The Monk currently believed that the valley and everything in the valley and around it, including the Monk itself and the Monk's horse, was a uniform shade of pale pink. This made for a certain difficulty in distinguishing any one thing from any other thing, and therefore made doing anything anything or going anywhere impossible, or at least difficult and dangerous. Hence the immobility of the Monk and the boredom of the horse, which had had to put up with a lot of silly things in its time but was secretly in the opinion that this was one of the silliest."

Being open to the possibility of such things? If you're speaking only of a belief claim, then theists, to be sure, since naturalists believe everything to be withing our natural understanding.


Nope, sorry. Haven't had one for years.

-- Mat

Me neither...anyways, it's seems like we all agree that there are events beyond our understanding, theist or non-theist. The difference is that the theist says these things are because of God(s) and the non-theist says that these things are simply beyond our understanding. I don't think either has to do with miracles because miracles take place on a higher level. As we've discussed, they include a degree of unlikeliness combined with a meaningful "positive" effect for those involved and a degree of timing. Explaining away a miracle with such ideas as God OR science does not change the story any. Miracles are subjective to the individual.

 

[michel]

Me neither...anyways, it's seems like we all agree that there are events beyond our understanding, theist or non-theist. The difference is that the theist says these things are because of God(s) and the non-theist says that these things are simply beyond our understanding. I don't think either has to do with miracles because miracles take place on a higher level. As we've discussed, they include a degree of unlikeliness combined with a meaningful "positive" effect for those involved and a degree of timing. Explaining away a miracle with such ideas as God OR science does not change the story any. Miracles are subjective to the individual.

Hi Ormiston;

Typically, I have to prove to be the exception to your rule.
I am a theist - but I don't 'fit your pattern'. As a theist, I have
a) what is natural, and which we understand
b) what is natural, and which is above level of comprehension. Like your non-theist, I still see this as part of nature, though.
Miracles are part of b), because God IS nature, and therefore miracles are still part of nature.

 

[Ormiston]

Hi Ormiston;

Typically, I have to prove to be the exception to your rule.
I am a theist - but I don't 'fit your pattern'. As a theist, I have
a) what is natural, and which we understand
b) what is natural, and which is above level of comprehension. Like your non-theist, I still see this as part of nature, though.
Miracles are part of b), because God IS nature, and therefore miracles are still part of nature.

I respect your comments. But what about the makeup of a miracle? If a pillar of flame were to suddenly rise from the ground unexplainably and just sort of swirl around there for a while and then turned into some butterflies....etc....and then just dissappeared, would this be a miracle? If you believe in God, then you would have to say that it was nothing more than a demonstration of God's power. My point is nothing happened other than some unexplained event. What makes a miracle a miracle to YOU Michel?

 

[michel]

I respect your comments. But what about the makeup of a miracle? If a pillar of flame were to suddenly rise from the ground unexplainably and just sort of swirl around there for a while and then turned into some butterflies....etc....and then just dissappeared, would this be a miracle? If you believe in God, then you would have to say that it was nothing more than a demonstration of God's power. My point is nothing happened other than some unexplained event. What makes a miracle a miracle to YOU Michel?

Nothing does.If i was to see the scene you have just described, I would think either that I was halucinating, or that someone very much wiser than I can comprehend has made what you have described happen. But it would not be God.