A question about miracles

[Andreu]

Hi all,

I’ve just registered to these forums because I have a serious doubt and I thought maybe some of you could help me.

First of all, let me explain that I am an atheist and not very well versed at catholic matters, so please excuse me if I say anything inappropriate. I don’t mean to offend anyone but to gain some insight and benefit from the views of other people. Also excuse me for my English, since I’m not a native speaker.

Ok, so here’s my doubt: I’m reading the book “A Road Less Travelled”, by M. Scott Peck, which I find truly remarkable, and at one point he speaks about miracles. This is a concept I have difficulty dealing with. As far as I know, a miracle can be defined as “something which is impossible, but does, however, happen” or “something that happens against the laws of nature”. But these definitions imply that miracles do not exist, and I know there are people who believe in the existence of miracles, including the author of the aforementioned book.

I’m probably being narrow-minded in my view, so I would like to know the opinions of different minded people. What is your definition of a miracle? Do you believe they exist?

I very much appreciate your help.

Andreu

 

[loozcannon]

Do I beleive they exist? Absolutely.

As an atheist, what’s opening your heart up to the possibility of miracles? Perhaps a knocking at the door?

In my mind, it is hard to explain a miracle and not use the word God.

 

[Della]

Hi all,

I’ve just registered to these forums because I have a serious doubt and I thought maybe some of you could help me.

First of all, let me explain that I am an atheist and not very well versed at catholic matters, so please excuse me if I say anything inappropriate. I don’t mean to offend anyone but to gain some insight and benefit from the views of other people. Also excuse me for my English, since I’m not a native speaker.

Ok, so here’s my doubt: I’m reading the book “A Road Less Travelled”, by M. Scott Peck, which I find truly remarkable, and at one point he speaks about miracles. This is a concept I have difficulty dealing with. As far as I know, a miracle can be defined as “something which is impossible, but does, however, happen” or “something that happens against the laws of nature”. But these definitions imply that miracles do not exist, and I know there are people who believe in the existence of miracles, including the author of the aforementioned book.

I’m probably being narrow-minded in my view, so I would like to know the opinions of different minded people. What is your definition of a miracle? Do you believe they exist?

I very much appreciate your help.

Andreu

The Church has a very narrow definition of what constitutes a recognized miracle. A miracle is an occurance in which the action of God cannot be explained by natural causes. This does not mean that God needs to violate any laws of nature (which don’t exist in reality–there are no “laws” only observable phenomena operating in predictable ways).

When the Church investigates any proported miracles it does so extremely carefully, from every possible angle with the help of scientists and physicians (when warranted, such as in the case of healings). Also, the Church does not seek out miracles nor encourage people to seek them out. They are considered “consolations” of God–gifts from his goodness that are welcome and beneficial but not necessary for the deposit of faith.

 

[slotty]

First up I think belief in miracles would require an acceptance of an actor not bound by the laws of our natural universe. They can’t be explained which is what makes them miraculous

I believe in God who can do anything so yes I believe in miracles.

I like this description from newadvent.org for what a miracle can be.

A miracle is said to be outside, or beside, nature when natural forces may have the power to produce the effect, at least in part, but could not of themselves alone have produced it in the way it was actually brought about.

 

[Mumbles140]

CS Lewis has a fascinating book simply called “Miracles” where he explains why he believes in them, why he believes they are necessary, the ‘types’ of miracles, and also why miracles don’t happen whenever they are prayed for.

Personally, I do believe in miracles, as Lourdes holds a very special and important place in my heart, and I have read the medical reports on the 60+ confirmed miraculous healings that have taken place as a result of bathing in the waters. In reading about the Lourdes miracles, you can also see how strict the requirements of the Church are for declaring a miracle - it doesn’t do your faith any good to proclaim false miracles…

As for a definition, I, like the others, cannot separate God from miracles. Someone surviving a ‘should-be fatal’ accident isn’t always a miracle, although it could be. But a discarded piece of the Eucharist transforming into actual flesh really has no other explanation but a miracle. And of course, the incorrupt saints (i.e. Saint Catherine, Saint Bernadette, etc) are a pretty strong showing for belief in miracles. So I guess a miracle is really something without any other explanation, within the confines of our physical world, occurring for no reason other than that God has reached down and affected it to be.

 

[Waiting]

CS Lewis has a fascinating book simply called “Miracles” where he explains why he believes in them, why he believes they are necessary, the ‘types’ of miracles, and also why miracles don’t happen whenever they are prayed for.

Personally, I do believe in miracles, as Lourdes holds a very special and important place in my heart, and I have read the medical reports on the 60+ confirmed miraculous healings that have taken place as a result of bathing in the waters. In reading about the Lourdes miracles, you can also see how strict the requirements of the Church are for declaring a miracle - it doesn’t do your faith any good to proclaim false miracles…

As for a definition, I, like the others, cannot separate God from miracles. Someone surviving a ‘should-be fatal’ accident isn’t always a miracle, although it could be. But a discarded piece of the Eucharist transforming into actual flesh really has no other explanation but a miracle. And of course, the incorrupt saints (i.e. Saint Catherine, Saint Bernadette, etc) are a pretty strong showing for belief in miracles. So I guess a miracle is really something without any other explanation, within the confines of our physical world, occurring for no reason other than that God has reached down and affected it to be.

:thumbsup:Exactly. Since God is the Author of nature, He can command, and nature obeys, such as Jesus quieting the winds when His apostles were afraid on the lake during a storm. Some miracles can be very dramatic, such as an instant cure of an incurable disease. But some “coincidences” can be just as startling to the receiver of a miracle on a smaller scale. I suspect that most people have benefited from what many of us call “Godincidences,” that is, small miracles happening in our lives, that most people would call just a coincidence.

 

[User124]

:thumbsup:Exactly. Since God is the Author of nature, He can command, and nature obeys, such as Jesus quieting the winds when His apostles were afraid on the lake during a storm. Some miracles can be very dramatic, such as an instant cure of an incurable disease. But some “coincidences” can be just as startling to the receiver of a miracle on a smaller scale. I suspect that most people have benefited from what many of us call “Godincidences,” that is, small miracles happening in our lives, that most people would call just a coincidence.

Could this be at the same time an answer to Islamic miracles in the times of Mohamed, where God was able to disobey the laws of nature and break them, therefore the Islamic god exists.
Of course if an all powerful god exists, he would be able to break the laws of nature, that would be very easy, but all religions bring that excuse as an argument to prove their religious miracles, but is it enough?
What makes the Catholic miracles more true than other religious miracles that invite people to be other than Catholics?
What gives the Catholic miracles more credits other than “The perfect god is able to do anything” excuse?

 

[Mumbles140]

Could this be at the same time an answer to Islamic miracles in the times of Mohamed, where God was able to disobey the laws of nature and break them, therefore the Islamic god exists.
Of course if an all powerful god exists, he would be able to break the laws of nature, that would be very easy, but all religions bring that excuse as an argument to prove their religious miracles, but is it enough?
What makes the Catholic miracles more true than other religious miracles that invite people to be other than Catholics?
What gives the Catholic miracles more credits other than “The perfect god is able to do anything” excuse?

Bodies, buried in the ground, decompose after death. Sure, you can mummify, try to add unnatural preservatives, or even freeze someone using cryogenics, but a regular body buried in the ground will decompose. So how have the bodies of some well-known Catholic saints remained completely free from decomposition? Though I have not yet seen it in person, they say the body of St. Bernadette is so perfectly incorrupt, she does not even bear the ‘waxiness’ that most corpses do - she rather appears to be sleeping inside a glass case.

I do not know what miracles you speak of in the time of Mohamed, but there are several explanations. Since Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all profess faith in the same God, perhaps those were real miracles, and if so, Mohamed could have misinterpreted or misapplied them. Or perhaps they were not really miracles at all. People can become conduits for demonic powers (i.e. possession, witch craft, etc). Regardless, using Lourdes as an example, there have been very well documented miraculous healings at the site of a Marian apparition. Or why not do some research into what secular newspapers wrote about the events that occurred in Fatima? Non-Catholic/non-believing reporters describing how the sun danced in the sky.

It is funny you describe breaking the laws of nature, as Lewis describes the two types of miracles. One type is the natural miracle, for example turning water into wine. God is taking something that can already happen (water is an ingredient in wine) and making it happen instantly. The same can be applied to the feeding of the 5,000. The other type of miracle, I believe he calls the supernatural, started with Christ’s resurrection. It is something outside our physical realm. No one can make someone come back from the dead (speaking in terms of spiritual death, not simply the lack of a pulse) except God - that cannot happen in nature without Him. So not all miracles involve breaking the laws of physics - only those that are supernatural.

 

[Della]

Could this be at the same time an answer to Islamic miracles in the times of Mohamed, where God was able to disobey the laws of nature and break them, therefore the Islamic god exists.
Of course if an all powerful god exists, he would be able to break the laws of nature, that would be very easy, but all religions bring that excuse as an argument to prove their religious miracles, but is it enough?
What makes the Catholic miracles more true than other religious miracles that invite people to be other than Catholics?
What gives the Catholic miracles more credits other than “The perfect god is able to do anything” excuse?

Excluding miracles that have been claimed before reliable records and testing were done, the Catholic Church investigates any claims of miracles a bishop feels warrants it within his dicocese. So, they are well-documented and examined, as I described my previous post.

Having said that, I think you misunderstand who God is in this context. He isn’t the “Christian God” or the “Muslim God” or the “Hindu God”, he’s simply God–the God of the universe. Catholicism does not claim exclusive rights to miracles because God does them whenever and to whomever he pleases. What is required is faith in him–period. God doesn’t ask for theological credentials. I’ve sometimes wished he did for the very reason you posted your question–to show that his Church is the deposit of revealed truth. But he seems to prefer helping people who seek him even if they don’t have full knowledge of the fullness of the truth–of course faith being an element of truth. I’ll not tell God he can’t heal a seeker who asks for his healing touch who calls on him outside the Church, will you?

 

[User124]

Excluding miracles that have been claimed before reliable records and testing were done, the Catholic Church investigates any claims of miracles a bishop feels warrants it within his dicocese. So, they are well-documented and examined, as I described my previous post.

Having said that, I think you misunderstand who God is in this context. He isn’t the “Christian God” or the “Muslim God” or the “Hindu God”, he’s simply God–the God of the universe. Catholicism does not claim exclusive rights to miracles because God does them whenever and to whomever he pleases. What is required is faith in him–period. God doesn’t ask for theological credentials. I’ve sometimes wished he did for the very reason you posted your question–to show that his Church is the deposit of revealed truth. But he seems to prefer helping people who seek him even if they don’t have full knowledge of the fullness of the truth–of course faith being an element of truth. I’ll not tell God he can’t heal a seeker who asks for his healing touch who calls on him outside the Church, will you?

By Muslim God, I meant the god according to the Islamic belief, the God who sent the Koran as His holy book and made Mohamed his last prophet and invited people to Islam,I guess you know what I meant, because, of course if there is a creator he would be for all his creations, unlike what some religious people like to claim that God is with them against others, and a god who takes a side in wars or violences!

May I ask, those who investigate the Catholic miracles (the devil’s advocates), by whom are they given the authority to do so?

 

[User124]

Bodies, buried in the ground, decompose after death. Sure, you can mummify, try to add unnatural preservatives, or even freeze someone using cryogenics, but a regular body buried in the ground will decompose. So how have the bodies of some well-known Catholic saints remained completely free from decomposition? Though I have not yet seen it in person, they say the body of St. Bernadette is so perfectly incorrupt, she does not even bear the ‘waxiness’ that most corpses do - she rather appears to be sleeping inside a glass case.

I do not know what miracles you speak of in the time of Mohamed, but there are several explanations. Since Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all profess faith in the same God, perhaps those were real miracles, and if so, Mohamed could have misinterpreted or misapplied them. Or perhaps they were not really miracles at all. People can become conduits for demonic powers (i.e. possession, witch craft, etc). Regardless, using Lourdes as an example, there have been very well documented miraculous healings at the site of a Marian apparition. Or why not do some research into what secular newspapers wrote about the events that occurred in Fatima? Non-Catholic/non-believing reporters describing how the sun danced in the sky.

It is funny you describe breaking the laws of nature, as Lewis describes the two types of miracles. One type is the natural miracle, for example turning water into wine. God is taking something that can already happen (water is an ingredient in wine) and making it happen instantly. The same can be applied to the feeding of the 5,000. The other type of miracle, I believe he calls the supernatural, started with Christ’s resurrection. It is something outside our physical realm. No one can make someone come back from the dead (speaking in terms of spiritual death, not simply the lack of a pulse) except God - that cannot happen in nature without Him. So not all miracles involve breaking the laws of physics - only those that are supernatural.

Maybe I didn’t mention it in my post, but yes you can break the laws of physics and be a human, without getting involved with supernaturals.

 

[Della]

By Muslim God, I meant the god according to the Islamic belief, the God who sent the Koran as His holy book and made Mohamed his last prophet and invited people to Islam,I guess you know what I meant, because, of course if there is a creator he would be for all his creations, unlike what some religious people like to claim that God is with them against others, and a god who takes a side in wars or violences!

And I would ask what difference does it make what is their idea of God, a Hindu’s idea of God or anyone else’s when God does what he pleases for his own reasons? It doesn’t matter what they believe, it matters that they asked and sought God’s help, you see. Or are we talking past one another?

And you would want God to take the side of an aggressor who wants to destroy other countries and cultures in order to conquer them? God is not a pacifist nor does the Church teach that wars are always wrong–just FYI.

May I ask, those who investigate the Catholic miracles (the devil advocates), by whom are they given the authority to do so?

Usually, the bishop of the diocese in which the claimed miracle alledgedly occured appoints someone to do this. Although the term “devil’s advocate” is a misnomer. That person is usually a priest and, as I understand it, only investigates the case for sainthood. Sometimes the Vatican steps in if there is a major dispute between factions, but that’s unusual.

 

[User124]

And I would ask what difference does it make what is their idea of God, a Hindu’s idea of God or anyone else’s when God does what he pleases for his own reasons? It doesn’t matter what they believe, it matters that they asked and sought God’s help, you see. Or are we talking past one another?

And you would want God to take the side of an aggressor who wants to destroy other countries and cultures in order to conquer them? God is not a pacifist nor does the Church teach that wars are always wrong–just FYI.

Usually, the bishop of the diocese in which the claimed miracle alledgedly occured appoints someone to do this. Although the term “devil’s advocate” is a misnomer. That person is usually a priest and, as I understand it, only investigates the case for sainthood. Sometimes the Vatican steps in if there is a major dispute between factions, but that’s unusual.

It makes a difference, Catholic miracles for example, if they are true, they prove that Jesus is the son of God, he died on cross and was resurrected, and that Mary is the mother of god and saints are true, these things contradict with faiths like Islam, Judaism and some Protestants beliefs.
When Mohamed, Imam ali, and other Islamics perform miracles, it serves the Islamic faith, and Islamic faith denies the trinity, the death and resurrection of Jesus, and Judaism.
Same for other religions, if God is making miracles based on the main beliefs in these faiths, it means that all the basics of these faiths are true, which can’t be true because they contradict each other.

Who said I want a god who takes a side in wars?
You’re right, I don’t see any pacifist god in the Holy books, and btw all wars are “just wars” in the eyes of those who participate in it.

 

[Della]

It makes a difference, Catholic miracles for example, if they are true, they prove that Jesus is the son of God, he died on cross and was resurrected, and that Mary is the mother of god and saints are true, these things contradict with faiths like Islam, Judaism and some Protestants beliefs.
When Mohamed, Imam ali, and other Islamics perform miracles, it serves the Islamic faith, and Islamic faith denies the trinity, the death and resurrection of Jesus, and Judaism.
Same for other religions, if God is making miracles based on the main beliefs in these faiths, it means that all the basics of these faiths are true, which can’t be true because they contradict each other.

But the Catholic Church doesn’t claim that miracles prove anything. The only miracle that proves Christianity is the Resurrection of Christ. We have no quarrel with others asking for God to answer prayers, nor do we think their miracles, as they define them, proves their beliefs correct or incorrect, you see.

Who said I want a god who takes a side in wars?

I see I misread what you posted. Sorry about that. But we Catholics don’t claim God takes sides, only that he defends the right. And in some wars there is a definite right fighting a definite wrong.

You’re right, I don’t see any pacifist god in the Holy books, and btw all wars are “just wars” in the eyes of those who participate in it.

They’d be wrong. A just war is one of defense against an aggressor, such as the Allies against the Nazis’ invasions and attempted destruction of peoples and cultures. Not everyone participating in a war can make a true claim for waging a just war. But we are straying from the topic.

 

[danserr]

Hi all,

I’ve just registered to these forums because I have a serious doubt and I thought maybe some of you could help me.

First of all, let me explain that I am an atheist and not very well versed at catholic matters, so please excuse me if I say anything inappropriate. I don’t mean to offend anyone but to gain some insight and benefit from the views of other people. Also excuse me for my English, since I’m not a native speaker.

Ok, so here’s my doubt: I’m reading the book “A Road Less Travelled”, by M. Scott Peck, which I find truly remarkable, and at one point he speaks about miracles. This is a concept I have difficulty dealing with. As far as I know, a miracle can be defined as “something which is impossible, but does, however, happen” or “something that happens against the laws of nature”. But these definitions imply that miracles do not exist, and I know there are people who believe in the existence of miracles, including the author of the aforementioned book.

I’m probably being narrow-minded in my view, so I would like to know the opinions of different minded people. What is your definition of a miracle? Do you believe they exist?

I very much appreciate your help.

Andreu

By miracle, I think a good definition is “a naturally impossible event.”

It just means that nature itself, can’t produce miracles. Hence, if miracles do happen, there must be a supernatural cause.

As an example, the Resurrection of Jesus. It is naturally impossible that a man who suffered those wounds, died, and lay in the tomb dead for that long should rise from the dead. But, this does not mean that God could not have raised Jesus supernaturally from the dead. That it is a miracle means that it was naturally impossible, but not that it was impossible for God.

 

[User124]

But the Catholic Church doesn’t claim that miracles prove anything. The only miracle that proves Christianity is the Resurrection of Christ. We have no quarrel with others asking for God to answer prayers, nor do we think their miracles, as they define them, proves their beliefs correct or incorrect, you see.

I see I misread what you posted. Sorry about that. But we Catholics don’t claim God takes sides, only that he defends the right. And in some wars there is a definite right fighting a definite wrong.

They’d be wrong. A just war is one of defense against an aggressor, such as the Allies against the Nazis’ invasions and attempted destruction of peoples and cultures. Not everyone participating in a war can make a true claim for waging a just war. But we are straying from the topic.

But they directly and indirectly serve a specific belief even if it’s not fully expressed, for example if I was sure that a miracle related to the Catholic belief is true, I would probably believe in Catholicism, same for most people.

I apologize too.

In my opinion, there is always alternatives to wars and violence, John Paul two didn’t participate in the WW2 or in the polish resistance, he stood up against Nazism in other non violent ways, same for Maximilian Kolbe, or Jehovah witnesses , or secular pacifists, or Gandhist revolution in other times… In this, I support what the biblical Jesus said to Peter when he was attacking the Roman soldiers, to put his sword back in it’s place, even that they believed they were right for their stand against oppression, they " turned the other cheek", I know it’s very hard to do, but that what makes me love it more!
Back to the topic, anyone of you went thru a miracle?

 

[Andreu]

From your comments, I guess most of us agree that a miracle cannot be explained through natural causes. A miracle is naturally impossible and must have a supernatural cause.

However, as humans, we have nowhere near a complete understanding of nature, so I don’t think anybody can declare that a given event is naturally impossible. We can only be sure that some events are possible, because they have happened. We don’t know about the others.

Besides, let’s say that a given event cannot possibly occur if its not through divine intervention. Then God intervenes and the event happens. If we could be sure of this, then we could say that the event has a supernatural cause, but only because WE have arbitrarily decided that we’re going to classify God under the supernatural. We could as well classify God under the natural world, and then the given event would have a perfectly natural cause - direct intervention from God.

 

[slotty]

as humans, we have nowhere near a complete understanding of nature, so I don’t think anybody can declare that a given event is naturally impossible.

Whilst we don’t have a complete understanding of all things we do have an understanding to some regard and we as humans are able to look at something investigate it and come
to a conclusion. An example being coming back to life after dying would be considered something we can say is outside of the bounds of nature and naturally occuring events.

Besides, let’s say that a given event cannot possibly occur if its not through divine intervention. Then God intervenes and the event happens. If we could be sure of this, then we could say that the event has a supernatural cause, but only because WE have arbitrarily decided that we’re going to classify God under the supernatural. We could as well classify God under the natural world, and then the given event would have a perfectly natural cause - direct intervention from God.

God is supernatural by his very nature. My limited understanding of who and what God is means I believe that he exists outside of the boundaries natural universe but can very much interact with it if he see’s fit to do so. Because of this any direct intervention from God is supernatural because the event could not occur without his interaction.

 

[Andreu]

God is supernatural by his very nature. My limited understanding of who and what God is means I believe that he exists outside of the boundaries natural universe

I will repeat myself, but in other words: maybe it’s not a question of whether God is natural or supernatural, but rather of what we mean when we say “natural” or “supernatural”. If you ask an atheist, he/she will say that nature is everything and there’s nothing outside it (I’m talking about nature as a synonimous for the physical universe, not as in natural vs. artifical). Then, for someone who believes in God, wouldn’t it be a valid stance to say also that nature is everything (including God) and there’s nothing outside it? Note that I’m not saying that any of these possibilities is correct or incorrect: it has nothing to do with correctness, since we have created the word “nature” and we are free to define it as we find more convenient.

 

[danserr]

From your comments, I guess most of us agree that a miracle cannot be explained through natural causes. A miracle is naturally impossible and must have a supernatural cause.

However, as humans, we have nowhere near a complete understanding of nature, so I don’t think anybody can declare that a given event is naturally impossible. We can only be sure that some events are possible, because they have happened. We don’t know about the others.

Besides, let’s say that a given event cannot possibly occur if its not through divine intervention. Then God intervenes and the event happens. If we could be sure of this, then we could say that the event has a supernatural cause, but only because WE have arbitrarily decided that we’re going to classify God under the supernatural. We could as well classify God under the natural world, and then the given event would have a perfectly natural cause - direct intervention from God.

I understand you to have two questions:

1. How do we know that a miracle is not really just a law of nature that we didn’t know about or discover yet?
2. Why don’t we consider God part of nature?

In answer:

1. In some cases, I can see that this might in theory be an issue, but in some for an atheist or skeptic to refuse to believe a miracle because it might someday be shown to actually happen according to the laws of nature is just a pipedream.

For example, take the resurrection of Jesus. Everything we know indicates that when a man is beaten and tortured to death and lies dead for that long in a tomb, he does not simply return to life two days later. This is not an argument from ignorance; rather we know very well what happens to a dead body after death and we know that when bodies die for that long, they stay dead. So, the idea that a person can’t believe that God did the miracle of the Resurrection because, we might one day find it was possible after all just doesn’t seem like a serious possibility.

1. There is nothing arbitrary about considering God beyond nature. Nature refers to the physical or material world. It was created by God. But no one thinks that God is physical or material. On the contrary, as the creator of nature, He is beyond it.

I will repeat myself, but in other words: maybe it’s not a question of whether God is natural or supernatural, but rather of what we mean when we say “natural” or “supernatural”. If you ask an atheist, he/she will say that nature is everything and there’s nothing outside it (I’m talking about nature as a synonimous for the physical universe, not as in natural vs. artifical). Then, for someone who believes in God, wouldn’t it be a valid stance to say also that nature is everything (including God) and there’s nothing outside it? Note that I’m not saying that any of these possibilities is correct or incorrect: it has nothing to do with correctness, since we have created the word “nature” and we are free to define it as we find more convenient.

When we refer to “natural”, we refer to the physical and material world of matter and energy. When we refer to the laws of nature, we refer to how this matter and energy has a tendency to behave. This is not an arbitrary definition, I think you would have a very hard time finding anyone to reject it.

I don’t think the idea that we could redefine God to mean “part of nature” is helpful because then we are changing the meaning of language that everyone understands and this risks being confusing and making us unclear. Think about it, if we did that, both the Christian and atheist would be able to say “I believe that nature is all there is,” but they would mean two completely different things! I don’t see how that is helpful.

So, no, I don’t think it would be helpful to redefine “nature” to include God. When most people use the word “nature” they mean matter and energy and the laws according to which they act. I don’t see the value in redefining it.

Of course, one can redefine anything if he wants too. I can say “hey let’s say that “murder” now includes donating money to charity!” But what is the point? It doesn’t help and it only leads to confusion if you empty a term of all the meaning that it has previously had.