Using miracles in apologetics

[anon50218184]

What has been your experience in making use of miracles in apologetics.

I would assume that most non-Catholics or atheists would dismiss miracles, but if they are presented in a compelling way with plenty of scientific evidence wouldn’t they at least elicit acknowledgement and maybe open up the door?

I think sometimes we’re afraid to mention miracles because we might be ridiculed, but Our Lord worked miracles, and there are plenty of miracles that resulted in mass conversions - I’m thinking of Our Lady of Guadalupe, for example.

Thoughts?

 

[Joe_5859]

I don’t think we need to deliberately avoid talking about miracles, but it wouldn’t necessarily be my starting point in a conversation with an atheist. I think the story of Our Lady of Guadalupe is awesome, and I share it with our RCIA class. But not the first week. I do throw out there towards the beginning about saints needing to have a confirmed miracle prior to being beatified and then canonized. I do think it’s helpful for people to begin to think in terms of the fact that miracles aren’t just relegated to distant ages past and distant lands with lots of sand.

But, again, for an atheist, I think there’s generally other conversations that have to happen first.

 

[Verdanty]

Hi, Atheist here.

I would be wary of a “miracle” being percieved as “evidence” of any divinity. Let me explain why…

1. Miracle or New Natural phenomena

It was thought not all that long ago that flight was impossible for humanity, how wrong indeed that turned out to be in the long run. What may seem “miraculous” might actually be perfectly mundane, and merely be a new encounter for humanity.

1. Why would it be the Christian God?

The bible itself tells you that the devil can appear clothed like an angel of light does it not? Supposing tomorrow as I collect my paper I see the Virgin Mary appear from the heavens. Was that really her? What’s to say it wasn’t Satan, or perhaps the Viking Trickster God Loki playing mind games with me?

1. Miraculous evidence is scant

Let’s go with Our Lady of Guadalupe. That tilma has never been properly examined. Partial scientific examination has been undertaken yes, but a complete assessment has never taken place and scientists have been limited on what examinations they were permitted to perform on it.

One of the few times scientists were allowed more free reign, incomplete but greater free reign to test a relic they have discovered them to be fraudulent; see when the Oxford team examined the Shroud of Turin and deemed it to be of medieval origin. Likewise for a number of Eucharistic miracles; red algae and rot have not infrequently been found to be more likely candidates for bleeding hosts than actual human blood pouring from processed wheat.

There’s many more points I could list, but just as a starting point. TL;DR: If a “miracle” was to occur, of which as of yet there is no evidence (scientifically valid) to have happened; occams razor itself would suggest it’s more likely to have natural and mundane answers than “God did it”.

 

[anon50218184]

Thank you for the thoughtful response. I’m inclined to agree with you in saying that miracles ought not to be presented as for the existence of God - we have created reality for that - but perhaps they can be studied to know more about His nature. Of course any discussion on God’s nature would require an agreement on His existence.

I think I understand your point about miracle vs new natural phenomena, however your example of flight doesn’t really apply since human flight by means of machinery is still not a natural phenomenon, but I’m sure you can think of dozens of other examples. Nevertheless, I would point to certain types of miracles that have occurred in the past, continue to occur today, and continue to evade scientific explanation. I’m thinking particularly of Eucharistic miracles.
This brings us to your third point, that evidence is scant (you said miraculous evidence, but I believe you mean scientific evidence of miracles). I don’t mean to presume, but I’ll venture to say that perhaps what is scant is knowledge of the evidence. With regards to Eucharistic miracles, especially in contemporary cases, the studies are performed by a third party that is unaware of the provenance of the material. Invariably results indicate that the tissue being examined is from the heart of a male that has undergone torture. This is regardless of where the tissue came from (Argentina, Poland, Italy) or when it came from (1500s, 1990s, 2000s).
Further, studies that confirm miracles are blind-studies (where the scientists don’t know anything about where the evidence comes from) whereas the Shroud of Turin study was not blind; i.e. the scientists knew what they were dealing with. This allows for the possibility of bias whereas a blind study does not.
I’m not particularly familiar with the Shroud of Turin. To my knowledge the claim is that it was the shroud used to wrap up the dead body of Jesus. If a study proves that it is from the middle ages all that proves is that it wasn’t the shroud used to bury Jesus.
The Tilma of Juan Diego, on the other hand, is something that I am fairly familiar with. From what I’ve read it has been extensively researched and I find no compelling evidence to suggest that it is not miraculous.
Finally, I could just as easily appeal to Occam’s razor to affirm the miraculous as you can appeal to it to deny it. In fact, I believe my appeal to it is much stronger than yours because, after all, what is the simplest explanation that an all powerful being performed a miracle or some other complex explanation (or even worse, an appeal to the “yet unknown”).

I very much appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[De_Maria]

What has been your experience in making use of miracles in apologetics…- I’m thinking of Our Lady of Guadalupe, for example.

Thoughts?

I consider miracles, our FIFTH Gospel. But I don’t go out of my way to introduce them into the conversation. Because…

1. In the first place, because Protestants won’t accept any miracles that have anything to do with Saints. They believe we “worship” Saints and therefore consider those miracles, including Our Lady’s signs and apparitions, to be satanic.
2. They feel similarly about the Eucharist. They consider our devotion to the Eucharist to be idolatry. Thus, Eucharistic miracles to be from the enemy.
3. Many people consider miracles to be fabricated for propaganda put forth by the Church to fool the masses.

So, in my conversations with non-Catholics, I wait for a segue. For example, in a discussion I recently had with a Buddhist, he mentioned a miracle performed by some individual thousands of years ago. I used that opportunity to inform him that Catholics have been the happy beneficiaries of Divine Miracles from the time of Christ until this day. And I provided links to Guadalupe and Our Lady of Lajas.

 

[BoomerangToo]

I’d say if the person is open to the possibility of miracles and is curious and seeking knowledge, then miracles would be a good evangelizing tool. Otherwise, you are casting your pearls before swine. Almost all confirmed atheists will not ever believe in a miracle unless one happens to them personally, which is not likely. Miracles are usually reserved for believers, as a reward and encouragement for their faith.

I was very dismissive of miracles when I was an atheist. I’m embarrassed by that now. How ignorant I was then!..

 

[Jared2914]

It always depends on the person. Usually, you can’t talk about miracles to a nonbeliever. They want hard evidence in front of them. Unless you could have God perform a miracle for this person to believe, they won’t accept any argument based on miracles. Of course, doing that would be putting God to the test, which he will never go along with. Instead, focus on logical arguments for why certain teachings are good and true. If you can get them to believe some teachings are true, they might be more open to other teachings later. It’s only when they have a lot of faith that they can believe miracles. At that point, they would probably already be Christian or on the way (RCIA).

 

[De_Maria]

Hi, Atheist here.

Diah’s response was very thorough, I don’t want to step on that. But I would like to take you up on some things you’ve said which prove his words,

"I don’t mean to presume, but I’ll venture to say that perhaps what is scant is knowledge of the evidence."

You proved your scant knowledge of the evidence of miracles when you said:

Let’s go with Our Lady of Guadalupe. That tilma has never been properly examined. Partial scientific examination has been undertaken yes, but a complete assessment has never taken place and scientists have been limited on what examinations they were permitted to perform on it.

I don’t know how much more examination you want in order to consider it complete. It has been examined with infrared and super microscopes that magnified parts of the image 2500 times.

Here’s what all the examinations by the top atheist scientists have found. The 500 year old image on the tilma can not be reproduced today by the best artists. For one thing, there is no sign of tint, ink or paint on the cloth.

One of the few times scientists were allowed more free reign, incomplete but greater free reign to test a relic they have discovered them to be fraudulent;

ROFL! The declarations were premature. It was found that the scientists who made that declaration was actually the one who perpetrated the fraud.

But other scientists have seen the light. See the findings of this former atheist:

This evidence led him to believe that the image on the shroud was produced in a way that exceeds the capacities even of modern technology.

See also this evidence. It is mind blowing. No one can reproduce the image today. Much less 500 years ago. There is information in the image on the Shroud which was only scientifically discovered in the past century.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/iss...-latest-evidence-will-challenge-the-sceptics/

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I would simply focus on miracles in the New Testament. And also apply a little theology to them… For example in Johns Gospel a major theme is the light of the world. Jesus as the light of the world. And how Jesus draws us gradually, into the light.

For example in healing the blind man. In Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrin, seeking Jesus out at night. Looking for the truth, the light. Finally , in the burial of Jesus, seeing that light.

 

[BlackFriar]

As miracles are to be found outside of Catholicism and indeed of Christianity it is difficult to see what particular apologetic purpose they might have.

 

[anon50218184]

As miracles are to be found outside of Catholicism and indeed of Christianity it is difficult to see what particular apologetic purpose they might have.

Not sure what you mean by miracles “found outside of Catholicism…” but regardless of what you’re referring to (supernatural phenomena? preternatural phenomena?) certain miracles are distinctly Catholic in nature - such as Eucharistic miracles. So bringing up a Eucharistic miracle might help illustrate the truth of the Real Presence.

 

[BlackFriar]

You do not accept that other mass institutions can validly claim wonders that also support their belief system?

 

[anon50218184]

You do not accept that other mass institutions can validly claim wonders that also support their belief system?

Non sequitur. Just because a super natural or natural phenomenon can be used to support an erroneous statement doesn’t make use of super natural or natural phenomenon in argumentation invalid.

Someone might say that rain is indicative that God cries while others might say rain is indicative of changing temperatures in the atmosphere. Both are making reference to rain but arriving a different conclusions, just because rain is in fact not indicative that God cries doesn’t mean that it can’t be used to assert atmospheric changes.

I circle back to Eucharistic miracles. What do they prove? Do they prove pantheism? Protestantism? Or the True Presence?

From what I understand, your critique has more to do with how compelling a miracle might be than with wether or not to use observable phenomena in apologetics.

 

[BlackFriar]

Non sequitur. Just because a super natural or natural phenomenon can be used to support an erroneous statement doesn’t make use of super natural or natural phenomenon in argumentation invalid.

Not sure what you are non sequitorial about here exactly.

I would assume that most non-Catholics or atheists would dismiss miracles, but if they are presented in a compelling way with plenty of scientific evidence wouldn’t they at least elicit acknowledgement and maybe open up the door?

My small observation is that this assumes only the Catholic Church can lay a reasonable claim to miracles - you did not confine yourself to “Eucharistic miracles”. Therefore you suggest they could serve an apologetic purpose in guiding open people to Catholicism.

My experience is that other belief systems make similar claims. So such claims would serve little apologetic purpose if any.

 

[FiveLinden]

If there is a God, and God does miracles to reinforce faith, or demonstrate his existence, why would God not do actually miraculous things, such as regrowing an amputated mammalian limb? (instead of curing cancer in a way that could be confused with spontaneous, natural remission). Or maintain uncorrupted a body lost at sea or of a saint who died in a fire?

 

[BlackFriar]

Or appearing on earth as a loser and resurrecting himself only to close disciples.

Its a good question.
What is your own take?

 

[anon50218184]

My small observation is that this assumes only the Catholic Church can lay a reasonable claim to miracles

My contention is that your observation is false. Making reference to miracles does not “assume that only the Catholic Church can lay a reasonable claim to miracles”. Anyone can make reference to miracles (which through the course of our conversation have been loosely defined as super-natural phenomenon), the question, then, is how compelling the reference to the miracle is.

Not sure what you are non sequitorial about here exactly.

It does not follow that because “other mass institutions can validly claim wonders” then wonders have no “apologetic purpose”

you did not confine yourself to “Eucharistic miracles”.

No, I did not. I brought them up as an example of a miracle that speaks to a distinctly Catholic truth statement.

Therefore you suggest they could serve an apologetic purpose in guiding open people to Catholicism.

Yes, I do believe miracles can serve precisely that purpose. For example, a skeptic who earnestly studies Eucharistic miracles can arrive at the conclusion that the Eucharist is the True Presence and by extension that the rest of the Catholic faith is true. I contend that the same can be said about a skeptic who earnestly studies miracles such as the tilma of St. Juan Diego. If they can arrive at such a conclusion by virtue of their own studies, couldn’t they also be led to such a conclusion by an apologist presenting these miracles as compelling evidence?
Indeed, the miraculous tilma of St. Juan Diego did precisely that for over 9,000,000 native Americans.

My experience is that other belief systems make similar claims. So such claims would serve little apologetic purpose if any.

I hear you, which is why the question I believe you’re approaching is “How compelling is this or that piece evidence?”

I believe I mentioned earlier in the thread that the objective is not to prove God’s existence but to present miracles as supporting evidence for the Catholic Faith. For example, someone who denies the True Presence can be presented with the numerous Eucharistic Miracles that support it. Or someone who denies Our Lady’s role as Mediatrix can be presented with the numerous Marian miracles that support the statement.

You say “My experience is that other belief systems make similar claims.” What miracles deny the true presence? What miracles deny the supernatural nature of St. Juan Diego’s Tilma?

 

[BlackFriar]

the question, then, is how compelling the reference to the miracle is.

Why do you think this is not what I observed by the words “reasonable claim”?

No, I did not. I brought them up as an example of a miracle that speaks to a distinctly Catholic truth statement.

What is the topic of this thread, miracles or Eucharistic miracles? You wrote that surely?
Guadalupe is not a Eucharistic miracle.
Nor am I aware of any EM resulting in mass conversions.

 

[anon50218184]

If there is a God, and God does miracles to reinforce faith, or demonstrate his existence, why would God not do actually miraculous things, such as regrowing an amputated mammalian limb? (instead of curing cancer in a way that could be confused with spontaneous, natural remission). Or maintain uncorrupted a body lost at sea or of a saint who died in a fire?

He does. He does exactly that kind of thing all the time.

 

[BlackFriar]

You say “My experience is that other belief systems make similar claims.” What miracles deny the true presence? What miracles deny the supernatural nature of St. Juan Diego’s Tilma?

Not sure what your point is. If different belief systems are both supported by wonders then perhaps the wonders have nothing directly to do with supporting the belief system at all. Maybe it simply proves the strength of conviction or holiness of the person in question whatever their beliefs may be.