What constitutes a true 'miracle' to you?

[Telstar]

I have always had an interest in reading about miracles, either in the Biblical accounts, or in reading the lives of the Saints. In recent years, I’ve seen a lot of people throwing around that term to describe the silliest things imaginable. The Red Sox won the World series, “It’s a miracle!”. The Patriots won the Superbowl, “It really was a miracle!”. “It was an absolute miracle that my supper turned out so well, considering the fact that I don’t know how to cook!”

All of the above examples may seem to be a bit ridiculous to the extreme, but I think you know what I mean. When we toss that word around so frivolously, it tends to diminish what really constitutes a *true *miracle, from God. So, what do you believe a real miracle is? Is there a standard that we should use to measure them? I know that the Catholic Church has a very strict method of determining the authenticity of miracles, but what about non-Catholics? How do they make the determination of what they would promote as a true miracle from God? Can you provide any examples of something that you believe is truly miraculous? Or, do you even believe that real miracles ever happen anymore?

 

[Darran]

A direct intercession of God, whether powerful or small and almost insignificant.

The scrutinization of miracles isn’t unlike beatification - in that the saints were already saints before the Church recognised them. Some saints are never beatified, kept a secret to their community and family, some are beatified and become a great example to people for centuries, and some are entirely a secret to God alone.

Such is the similarity! Miracles are miracles, to whom they are revealed is God’s will. Truly a beautiful thing.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Well, I’m an atheist (former Catholic), so my opinion is going to be slightly different from what is likely to be the consensus. I do not believe miracles occur, or more precisely, I do not believe “miracles” are the result of divine intercession.

Reality has what is called a “probability set”. A probability set contains all probabilities from 0 (impossible) to 1 (certain). Some events are more likely to happen than others. For instance, it’s almost an absolute certainty (i.e. close to 1) that either a Democrat or a Republican will be elected as President of the United States. Other events are less likely to happen (i.e. close to 0) - someone who catches a deadly disease may not be cured. But the fact at the end of the day, is that each event is bound to happen: A Democrat/Republican will be elected into office, and someone will be cured from a deadly disease. The only difference is the likelihood of each event happening. So, we find that “miracles” are really just a statistical matter, not one due to divine intercession.

This explains the problem you have encountered: How do you distinguish between a “true” miracle from a coincidence? In actuality, you can’t. A miracle that occurs to someone praying is everywhere and anywhere always a coincidence. This explains why only a small number of people with deadly diseases end up being cured, which for us atheists is problematic as it indicates a biased God (on the assumption that he existed). For us atheists, the fact that only a small number of people are cured is proof of being a statistical phenomenon rather than a divine phenomenon. In addition, most miracles attributed to saints are hear-say, rumours, falsehoods and sometimes even outright lies. St. Padre Pio, for instance, has unfortunately been at the very brunt of this. He has been claimed to do all sorts of things, from bilocation (appearing in two different places at the same time) to miraculous healing. A brief Google search will reveal to you that there is no objective proof of these miracles ever occurring. Same thing for the claim that frequent prayer of the rosary saved two Jesuits from being hurt in a nuclear bomb explosion.

We place our belief and hope in the ingenuity of Mankind that scientific achievements made will be able to help the worst off in society, from the very ill to the very poor. It is a historical fact that Man has raised his potential life expectancy not by prayer, but only because of scientific advancements. We look to certainties rather than miracles. And science is helping what was once perceived to be a miracle, a certainty.

Many theists have tried to cover up their tracks so to speak with regards to the problem of miracles. St. Therese of Lisieux, as an example, had a methodology called the “Little Way”. She was a rather humble character, but one of the flaws of her methodology was attempting to see God in everything. This mainly encompassed the “little things”. We as atheists find such view of the world problematic, because the “little things” are essentially what is inevitably going to occur anyway. Whatever happened to the God who helped part the Red Sea for Moses, or made the sun stand still for Joshua? Seems like he has gone reticent all of a sudden. The fact that miracles rarely occur is itself a proof of God’s non-existence, or at least a revamping of how traditional theology perceives God. Epicurus, an Ancient Greek philosopher, summed it up best when he postulated:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent [all-powerful].
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent [evil].
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

That’s just an outline of why atheists do not believe in miracles. You may be interested in several philosophers, such as David Hume and Bertrand Russell. They have all spoken/alluded to the problem of miracles at one point in their career. Of course, this isn’t to dismiss what miracles you or anyone else on these forums may claim to have experienced. I understand that it’s an emotional subject for many, but this is what reality eventually boils down to, as I - a previous practicing Catholic - found out the “hard way”.

I wish you the best in your future endeavours .

 

[Darran]

Well, I’m an atheist (former Catholic), so my opinion is going to be slightly different from what is likely to be the consensus. I do not believe miracles occur, or more precisely, I do not believe “miracles” are the result of divine intercession.

Reality has what is called a “probability set”. A probability set contains all probabilities from 0 (impossible) to 1 (certain). Some events are more likely to happen than others. For instance, it’s almost an absolute certainty (i.e. close to 1) that either a Democrat or a Republican will be elected as President of the United States. Other events are less likely to happen (i.e. close to 0) - someone who catches a deadly disease may not be cured. But the fact at the end of the day, is that each event is bound to happen: A Democrat/Republican will be elected into office, and someone will be cured from a deadly disease. The only difference is the likelihood of each event happening. So, we find that “miracles” are really just a statistical matter, not one due to divine intercession.

This explains the problem you have encountered: How do you distinguish between a “true” miracle from a coincidence? In actuality, you can’t. A miracle that occurs to someone praying is everywhere and anywhere always a coincidence. This explains why only a small number of people with deadly diseases end up being cured, which for us atheists is problematic as it indicates a biased God (on the assumption that he existed). For us atheists, the fact that only a small number of people are cured is proof of being a statistical phenomenon rather than a divine phenomenon. In addition, most miracles attributed to saints are hear-say, rumours, falsehoods and sometimes even outright lies. St. Padre Pio, for instance, has unfortunately been at the very brunt of this. He has been claimed to do all sorts of things, from bilocation (appearing in two different places at the same time) to miraculous healing. A brief Google search will reveal to you that there is no objective proof of these miracles ever occurring. Same thing for the claim that frequent prayer of the rosary saved two Jesuits from being hurt in a nuclear bomb explosion.

We place our belief and hope in the ingenuity of Mankind that scientific achievements made will be able to help the worst off in society, from the very ill to the very poor. It is a historical fact that Man has raised his potential life expectancy not by prayer, but only because of scientific advancements. We look to certainties rather than miracles. And science is helping what was once perceived to be a miracle, a certainty.

Many theists have tried to cover up their tracks so to speak with regards to the problem of miracles. St. Therese of Lisieux, as an example, had a methodology called the “Little Way”. She was a rather humble character, but one of the flaws of her methodology was attempting to see God in everything. This mainly encompassed the “little things”. We as atheists find such view of the world problematic, because the “little things” are essentially what is inevitably going to occur anyway. Whatever happened to the God who helped part the Red Sea for Moses, or made the sun stand still for Joshua? Seems like he has gone reticent all of a sudden. The fact that miracles rarely occur is itself a proof of God’s non-existence, or at least a revamping of how traditional theology perceives God. Epicurus, an Ancient Greek philosopher, summed it up best when he postulated:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent [all-powerful].
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent [evil].
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

That’s just an outline of why atheists do not believe in miracles. You may be interested in several philosophers, such as David Hume and Bertrand Russell. They have all spoken/alluded to the problem of miracles at one point in their career. Of course, this isn’t to dismiss what miracles you or anyone else on these forums may claim to have experienced. I understand that it’s an emotional subject for many, but this is what reality eventually boils down to, as I - a previous practicing Catholic - found out the “hard way”.

I wish you the best in your future endeavours .

I have seen a man in Medjugorje who was skin and bones with who knows what disease, his eyes sunken so far into his head that it looked like nothing more than a skull, who prayed before the cross and was healed completely even to the plumpness of his face. That was medically impossible, it’s possible because of devine intervention alone and nothing else.

I strongly suggest you start your own thread in the apologist section or follow some Catholic research, as your questions have been answered, even in reply to, by lots of other philosophers better than I can.

Pax vobiscum.

 

[Telstar]

A direct intercession of God, whether powerful or small and almost insignificant.

The scrutinization of miracles isn’t unlike beatification - in that the saints were already saints before the Church recognised them. Some saints are never beatified, kept a secret to their community and family, some are beatified and become a great example to people for centuries, and some are entirely a secret to God alone.

Such is the similarity! Miracles are miracles, to whom they are revealed is God’s will. Truly a beautiful thing.

Thank you for your response, Darran. You’re right, of course. I have known several people that I believe might qualify as saints, but I doubt they would ever be officially recognized as such, mainly because there were no ‘miracles’ associated with them. But, they did lead very holy lives considering they were not part of a ‘religious community’ (i.e. Priests, Nuns, or Brothers). They were just ordinary people that lived their faith as well as they could ‘in the world’.

I’m disappointed that I don’t see any responses from any of the non-Catholics in this forum section (except one post that seems to have been removed by a Mod, from yesterday). I was hoping to see many people give examples of things that they consider to be real miracles. One of my own favorites from recent history, is the blind man that was born with no pupils in his eyes, but was healed by Padré Pio. Even though he still had no pupils (confirmed by doctors), he could see as well as anyone. I can’t recall his name, but it is a well documented case that’s easily found on the internet, and in several books about Padré Pio. Those are the kinds of things that I think are the best examples of indisputable, ‘true miracles’, that I was hoping to hear about from other people, here. The kind of miracles that Jesus performed in the Gospels, and told us that, with enough faith, we could do them, too. I’m beginning to think that there are very few people left in the world that even believe in those miracles that Jesus performed.

 

[Darran]

I’m disappointed that I don’t see any responses from any of the non-Catholics in this forum section (except one post that seems to have been removed by a Mod, from yesterday). I was hoping to see many people give examples of things that they consider to be real miracles. One of my own favorites from recent history, is the blind man that was born with no pupils in his eyes, but was healed by Padré Pio. Even though he still had no pupils (confirmed by doctors), he could see as well as anyone. I can’t recall his name, but it is a well documented case that’s easily found on the internet, and in several books about Padré Pio. Those are the kinds of things that I think are the best examples of indisputable, ‘true miracles’, that I was hoping to hear about from other people, here. The kind of miracles that Jesus performed in the Gospels, and told us that, with enough faith, we could do them, too. I’m beginning to think that there are very few people left in the world that even believe in those miracles that Jesus performed.

That’s right, I heard of that miracle recently on the forums as well. I’m sure many people on these forums could give great examples. Looking for miracles outside of Catholicism is perhaps similar to looking for a torch in the dark, but let me be challenged on that statement.

 

[ltwin]

Pentecostals are Protestants that still believe in miracles similar to what occurs in the Bible. Of course, there is no system of verification like there is in Catholicism. And there is a problem with people simply making stuff up or faking healings. So you have to careful with what you give credence to.

My mother said that as a child my uncle had one foot shorter in length than the other, and it caused him a lot of problems. She said that the family was praying for him and saw the foot lengthen right before their eyes. Of course, I wasn’t alive then so I didn’t see it with my own eyes, but my mother says it did.

 

[Telstar]

Pentecostals are Protestants that still believe in miracles similar to what occurs in the Bible. Of course, there is no system of verification like there is in Catholicism. And there is a problem with people simply making stuff up or faking healings. So you have to careful with what you give credence to.

My mother said that as a child my uncle had one foot shorter in length than the other, and it caused him a lot of problems. She said that the family was praying for him and saw the foot lengthen right before their eyes. Of course, I wasn’t alive then so I didn’t see it with my own eyes, but my mother says it did.

OK, that’s the kind of stuff I’m talking about! Thank you! It’s a shame that they didn’t document it with pictures or a doctor’s confirmation of it happening, but those are the types of things that I’d consider to be real miracles (even better if actually verified). I know that things like being cured of cancer or something like, are usually hard to prove as miraculous because most cases of ‘cure’ might just be related to chemo or radiation therapy, etc., and might not be true miracles at all. The ones that might be worthy to be considered would be something that was ‘untreatable’, or that the person refused treatment for, then had a complete reversal of the cancer, overnight.

I tend to be a ‘doubting Thomas’ when it comes to claims of miraculous cures, unless there is good documentation by reputable doctors. There are way too many phony ‘spiritual healers’ out there that are not much better than snake-oil salesmen of the 19th century. I prefer a little better documentation than someone claiming to be cured of something they never really had in the first place. All those guys do is make those that receive real miracles look bad.

 

[ltwin]

I agree. There are Pentecostal denominations that do hold their ministers accountable, but there are also many Pentecostal preachers and ministers who are only accountable to themselves. It’s easy for such ministries to take advantage of people.

Pentecostals also believe things like prayer cloths, anointing oil, etc. can be “points of contact” or ways to focus one’s faith while praying for healing or some other need. Though, it is not the oil or the cloth that does anything; it is God who heals and answers prayer. A Pentecostal might pray over and anoint a prayer cloth to give it to someone in the military whose deployed to a war zone. Or they might ask someone who is sick to wear the cloth on themselves. It’s taken from Acts 19:11-12. So there is a strong belief in miracles within Pentecostalism.

 

[Telstar]

I agree. There are Pentecostal denominations that do hold their ministers accountable, but there are also many Pentecostal preachers and ministers who are only accountable to themselves. It’s easy for such ministries to take advantage of people.

Pentecostals also believe things like prayer cloths, anointing oil, etc. can be “points of contact” or ways to focus one’s faith while praying for healing or some other need. Though, it is not the oil or the cloth that does anything; it is God who heals and answers prayer. A Pentecostal might pray over and anoint a prayer cloth to give it to someone in the military whose deployed to a war zone. Or they might ask someone who is sick to wear the cloth on themselves. It’s taken from Acts 19:11-12. So there is a strong belief in miracles within Pentecostalism.

The use of ‘anointing oil’ is something that comes from the very early Church, and is still used today for the Sacrament for the Sick in the RCC, and, I think in the other Orthodox churches, as well. Since there is so much history of miracles in the RCC, we have had to come up with a very detailed method of investigating miracles so deceptions don’t get promoted as if they were true. If the RCC says something is a miracle, you can be sure that the entire circumstances surrounding it have been very rigorously studied and validated by experts in the field. We take our miracles* very* seriously.

 

[amber_lux]

determining the authenticity of miracles, but what about non-Catholics?

That depends, quite literally, on the participants.

do you even believe that real miracles ever happen anymore?

Yes, for various values of “real miracles”.

Amber