Are miracles scientific?

[Generic_Man]

A person I know was telling me how many miracles in the Bible were actually small manipulations of nature and the like by God rather than booming displays of raw power. For example

When Moses parted the Red Sea, God merely lowed the tide, exposing a sandbar for the Isrealites to cross, then rose it again when the Egyptians came.

That when Moses turned water into blood, God moved some kind of special pollen into the water that turned it red and made it thick. Supposedly the pollen actually exists in Egypt.

When Jesus walked on water, he actually walked on an unseen, submerged, sandbar. (This guy said that the reason why Peter was sinking was because he was walking away from Jesus, and ergo away from the sandbar).

Things like these. He said that this was not sacreligious, but actually showing that God did not need to use brute force but rather small adjustments that caused amazing effects.

So what is the RCC’s position on scientific stances on miracles like these?

 

[utunumsint]

The Church condemns this sort of rationalistic bias against the supernatural. From the PBC’s Instruction concerning the historical truth of the Gospels.

V. As occasion warrants, the interpreter may examine what reasonable elements are contained in the “Form-Critical method” that can be used for a fuller understanding of the Gospels. But let him be wary, because scarcely admissible philosophical and theological principles have often come to be mixed with this method, which not uncommonly have vitiated the method itself as well as the conclusions in the literary area. For some proponents of this method have been led astray by the prejudiced views of rationalism. They refuse to admit the existence of a supernatural order and the intervention of a personal God in the world through strict revelation, and the possibility and existence of miracles and prophecies. Others begin with a false idea of faith, as if it had nothing to do with historical truth–or rather were incompatible with it. Others deny the historical value and nature of the documents of revelation almost a priori. Finally, others make light of the authority of the apostles as witnesses to Christ, and of their task and influence in the primitive community, extolling rather the creative power of that community. All such views are not only opposed to Catholic doctrine, but are also devoid of scientific basis and alien to the correct principles of historical method.

Hope this helps clarify the Catholic position on miracles and the supernatural in relation to the historical critical method of interpreting the Bible. As Catholics, we cannot reject the supernatural order.

Ut

 

[utunumsint]

You can also deal with his objections from a purely apologetic standpoint.

When Moses parted the Red Sea, God merely lowed the tide, exposing a sandbar for the Isrealites to cross, then rose it again when the Egyptians came.

That is some miraculous tide. I lived two hours away from Fundy National Park in Canada which has the biggest tide in the world. Tides are governed by the position of the moon’s gravitational pull on the earth, and they are ciclical. You can set your clock to them. Tides don’t happen accidentally, and as far as I know, there are no tides of this magnitude in the Red Sea. Unless God somehow changed the orbit of the moon to create this effect! Wow. Pretty cool miracle.

When Jesus walked on water, he actually walked on an unseen, submerged, sandbar. (This guy said that the reason why Peter was sinking was because he was walking away from Jesus, and ergo away from the sandbar).

So the great miracle related by three Gospels was that Christ walked on anckle deep water… Wow. Compelling display of God’s power.

God bless,
Ut