Science and Miracles

[JasperJackson]

As most people on this forum are theistic evolutionists, I was wondering what your views are on miracles?

I personally believe in the big bang, evolution, and God but am having trouble justifying miracles, or more truthfully, my belief in miracles. If I can accept Jesus' resurrection as a miracle, why can't I accept that God literally created the heavens and the earth 6000 years ago and that He literally made Adam out of dust?

One idea I have been toying with is that the miracles Jesus performed were superhuman but they weren't supernatural. And by that I mean no mere man could have performed them, but at the same time, they did not violate the fundamental laws of physics that God created (e.g. Newton's laws of motion, conservation of energy, etc.).

What are some of your ideas?

JJ

 

[JasperJackson]

One of the problems I'm having at the moment is with Eve.

I don't see a problem with Adam and evolution. One day, an ape (or more likely, something much more like a human yet not quite human) gave birth to Adam. However the Bible says that man was created from dust and animals were created from the ground. To me, it means that they were created in basically the same manner, i.e. evolution. Where else did the first very simple organisms come from if not the ground.

Now as a Christian I know I can't reject anything in the Bible, but I do believe I can interpret it in such a way that is consistent with my understanding of science. So once Adam had been born, he needed someone else for humanity to survive. Which brings us to Eve. To justify this, what I was thinking was that perhaps two apes gave birth to two mutated apes (or humans) and we got Adam and Eve. And anyone who knows anything about evolution knows that probability-wise that is very unlikely... so unlikely that it must have been prompted by God?

However, my problem with my theory is that it is not a re-interpretation of the Bible it is a rejection of it. The Bible says that God ripped out Adam's rib and made Eve. How can a Christian scientist read that as some kind of metaphor that makes sense to both his Christian and scientific beliefs?

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
JJ

 

[crawfish]

I believe firmly in miracles. I believe that God works through what we refer to as "natural processes" - i.e., those that follow consistent and repeatable laws - and "supernatural processes" - those that break said laws. From a standpoint of God's involvement there is no real difference between the two; God is the driver of both and chooses the method He feels is proper.

Perhaps more a feeling than a belief - I think that God tends to work through natural processes as a rule, and supernatural processes when dealing with faith issues. For instance, creation, weather, etc. are allowed to work through the laws He designed, but the miracles of Jesus, designed to demonstrate His status as the Messiah, are supernatural.

At one point, I went through a list of all the miracles listed in the bible, and the big thing that hit me was all but a few were performed through a human interceder and publicly attributed to God by that person. If God can accomplish anything He wants through nature, it makes sense that he'd only go the supernatural route when He wants to demonstrate His Sovereignty. (Not that God necessarily has to make sense in human terms.)

The TE view does not preclude the belief that God is omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent. In fact, I believe that it would be mistaken to try and limit God in any fashion; either though our scientific explanations or our imaginations (or lack thereof).

 

[crawfish]

One of the problems I'm having at the moment is with Eve.

I don't see a problem with Adam and evolution. One day, an ape (or more likely, something much more like a human yet not quite human) gave birth to Adam. However the Bible says that man was created from dust and animals were created from the ground. To me, it means that they were created in basically the same manner, i.e. evolution. Where else did the first very simple organisms come from if not the ground.

Now as a Christian I know I can't reject anything in the Bible, but I do believe I can interpret it in such a way that is consistent with my understanding of science. So once Adam had been born, he needed someone else for humanity to survive. Which brings us to Eve. To justify this, what I was thinking was that perhaps two apes gave birth to two mutated apes (or humans) and we got Adam and Eve. And anyone who knows anything about evolution knows that probability-wise that is very unlikely... so unlikely that it must have been prompted by God?

However, my problem with my theory is that it is not a re-interpretation of the Bible it is a rejection of it. The Bible says that God ripped out Adam's rib and made Eve. How can a Christian scientist read that as some kind of metaphor that makes sense to both his Christian and scientific beliefs?

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
JJ

You read the story as metaphorical. Creating woman from man's rib creates the image that both are inseparable, tied together by a thread more common than God's creation. You see, if God had simply created Eve from dust she would be a separate creation; as separate as the plants and animals.

It also implies equality. Had God created Eve from a bone in man's head, it would imply she had precedence over him; if He had created Eve from a bone in man's foot, it would imply that he had precedence over her. By taking a rib, it implies that both men and women are of equal stature in God's eyes.

Were there real people named Adam and Eve who existed as mentioned in the bible? Maybe, maybe not. It really doesn't matter. What matters is that we understand our place in the world, under God and with each other, and our status as fallen beings who need God's grace to achieve salvation.

 

[gluadys]

One idea I have been toying with is that the miracles Jesus performed were superhuman but they weren't supernatural. And by that I mean no mere man could have performed them, but at the same time, they did not violate the fundamental laws of physics that God created (e.g. Newton's laws of motion, conservation of energy, etc.).

I think the idea that the miracles did not break any fundamental laws of physics is not bad. That miracles are explainable by some deeper law of nature that we have not discovered yet is an old idea. However, it may also be a "god-in-the-gaps" idea as the more deeply we explore nature, the less likely it is that we have overlooked any possible natural explanation.

But aside from that, why is it important to you that Jesus' miracles be "superhuman"? Jesus plainly said that they were not. He said many times that it was a matter of faith. That anyone who had the tiniest bit of faith could move a mountain into the sea, cast out demons, raise the dead and so forth.

And in fact, scripture shows ordinary mortals, prophets and apostles doing the same sort of miracles Jesus did.

So why expect them to be beyond human capability?

 

[gluadys]

One of the problems I'm having at the moment is with Eve.

I don't see a problem with Adam and evolution. One day, an ape (or more likely, something much more like a human yet not quite human) gave birth to Adam. However the Bible says that man was created from dust and animals were created from the ground. To me, it means that they were created in basically the same manner, i.e. evolution. Where else did the first very simple organisms come from if not the ground.

Now as a Christian I know I can't reject anything in the Bible, but I do believe I can interpret it in such a way that is consistent with my understanding of science. So once Adam had been born, he needed someone else for humanity to survive. Which brings us to Eve. To justify this, what I was thinking was that perhaps two apes gave birth to two mutated apes (or humans) and we got Adam and Eve. And anyone who knows anything about evolution knows that probability-wise that is very unlikely... so unlikely that it must have been prompted by God?

However, my problem with my theory is that it is not a re-interpretation of the Bible it is a rejection of it. The Bible says that God ripped out Adam's rib and made Eve. How can a Christian scientist read that as some kind of metaphor that makes sense to both his Christian and scientific beliefs?

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
JJ

Crawfish is right. Interpreting the story metaphorically is an old Christian tradition. In this short sermon, 5th century bishop St. John Chrysostom treats Adam and Eve as metaphors of Christ and the Church, and the creation of Eve from Adam's rib as a metaphor of the Church being born from the wound in Christ's side.

http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com...ater_From_His_Side___St._John_Chrysostom.html

As an aside, the idea that male and female would have to appear separately does not fit evolutionary theory either.

 

[chaoschristian]

So why expect them to be beyond human capability?

Indeed, if I recall correctly, Jesus went on to say that we would do greater things than he.

Miracles are signs (in that they signafy) that simultaneously attribute and drawn out meaning from an event. The miracles of the Gospel, for instance, are used to signify the identity of Jesus as Christ and to point to the Kingdom was was both imminent and at hand.

There's no need to search for a scientific foundation for any of these miracles, and as gluady's points out, such a search could be fruitless in both a material and spiritual sense.

While I have no doubt of the historical nature of these miracles, I also have no doubt that what we are presented with is not necessarily an historical account of events. So searching for scientific confirmation through the portrayal of the events is a lost and misguided cause, because the portrayal of events is not intented or purposed to point us to a scientific understanding of their significance.

 

[Theogonia]

As most people on this forum are theistic evolutionists, I was wondering what your views are on miracles?

I personally believe in the big bang, evolution, and God but am having trouble justifying miracles, or more truthfully, my belief in miracles. If I can accept Jesus' resurrection as a miracle, why can't I accept that God literally created the heavens and the earth 6000 years ago and that He literally made Adam out of dust?

One idea I have been toying with is that the miracles Jesus performed were superhuman but they weren't supernatural. And by that I mean no mere man could have performed them, but at the same time, they did not violate the fundamental laws of physics that God created (e.g. Newton's laws of motion, conservation of energy, etc.).

What are some of your ideas?

JJ

I believe there is a natural explanation for all miracles.

 

[Noonward]

As there is a miraculous explanation for all natural events.

 

[JasperJackson]

As there is a miraculous explanation for all natural events.

Yes, if by that you mean the creation of the universe as the first miracle.

 

[stumpjumper]

As most people on this forum are theistic evolutionists, I was wondering what your views are on miracles?

I believe that miracles are something that God directly caused to happen for a specific reason regardless of the method or manner of how the action occurred.

I believe they are, in a sense, signs or manifestations of God's active presence in the world.

They could very easily have been brought about through natural mechanisms and in accordance with natural laws...

 

[JasperJackson]

One idea I have been toying with is that the miracles Jesus performed were superhuman but they weren't supernatural. And by that I mean no mere man could have performed them, but at the same time, they did not violate the fundamental laws of physics that God created (e.g. Newton's laws of motion, conservation of energy, etc.).

Hmm, is it bad form to quote yourself on these boards? Oh well.

So one explanation I've heard for miracles is that God temporarily suspends His laws of nature while He performs His miracles - which is a perfectly good explanation. But I think if that were true, it would be a form of deception and God would never deceive us. So for that reason I believe that we are capable of understanding HOW God does things. But obviously we will never be able to understand WHY He does everything.

Luke 10:27 says "...Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind..." AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND!

 

[crawfish]

So one explanation I've heard for miracles is that God temporarily suspends His laws of nature while He performs His miracles - which is a perfectly good explanation. But I think if that were true, it would be a form of deception and God would never deceive us. So for that reason I believe that we are capable of understanding HOW God does things. But obviously we will never be able to understand WHY He does everything.

Why would that be deception? Miracles are meant to be miraculous. God does not indicate that there should be rational explanations for them.

 

[Molal]

Why would that be deception? Miracles are meant to be miraculous. God does not indicate that there should be rational explanations for them.

Exactly!!! That's the definition of a miracle - without rational explanation.

I have no problems with miracles. But I do have difficulty knowing when a miracle may have happened. As a scientist, I have a tendency to place naturalistic causes onto everything. I suppose I will know when I get to ask God all these questions I have.

 

[shernren]

Hmm, is it bad form to quote yourself on these boards? Oh well.

So one explanation I've heard for miracles is that God temporarily suspends His laws of nature while He performs His miracles - which is a perfectly good explanation. But I think if that were true, it would be a form of deception and God would never deceive us. So for that reason I believe that we are capable of understanding HOW God does things. But obviously we will never be able to understand WHY He does everything.

Luke 10:27 says "...Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind..." AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND!

I think the argument of deception is not an argument against miracles per se, but rather an argument against miracles that "clean themselves up". The argument is that if a miracle occurs, it leaves behind physical evidence of its happening. However, we don't have physical evidence of the kind you would expect to be left behind after a global Flood. Therefore, either the Flood didn't happen, or something's screwing us over.

More generally, when creationists say "well, it might all be scientific, but that doesn't mean it's physical", this is when the deception issue comes in. For example, we have plenty of redshift observations that validate Hubble's Law. Maybe, however, the universe outside us isn't really made of that stuff (and thus the Big Bang never happened); our instruments' measurements are like that but that doesn't mean reality actually works that way. In response, then, we would ask why physical reality would have to lie about itself.

God isn't beholden to make His physical rules work at all times. However, they are uniform across all observers; that is to say, many people doing physical observations on the same event will all receive the same results, whether miracle or not; furthermore, those observations correspond to some kind of actual reality out there.

 

[JasperJackson]

Sorry, I realised I didn't explain why I put that quote from Luke in my previous post...

Luke 10:27 says "...Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind..." AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND!

... I think that is evidence for my theory that we can come to know HOW God performed miracles. But, even though we may be able to understand HOW they happened, I don't think we can recreate them.

I'll take walking on water as an example. I think Jesus somehow used a form of energy that we do not understand (yet) to levitate and seemingly defy gravity. So the law of conservation of energy was still satisfied. And we could nearly recreate that, with strings or rocket boosters or something, but no mere man could do it by himself, and hence it was a miracle.

shernren, as for the flood, I think that is a metaphor for a period in time when the polar ice caps had previously melted. And the 40 days and 40 nights should also not be taken literally - just like how God did not create the universe in 6 days as we define a day.

 

[JasperJackson]

Why would that be deception? Miracles are meant to be miraculous. God does not indicate that there should be rational explanations for them.

I think it would basically be like God saying "Here are the laws of nature. This is how stuff works. Oh wait a second, let me just change that a bit. Ok go. No wait, I'll just pause that parameter. Ok I've done what I needed to do. I'll push the play button again. Right, as you were."
So maybe 'deception' isn't the right word. But if He did temporarily suspend His laws of nature then that would be confusing for people to understand and I don't think God would want to confuse us.

 

[shernren]

I think it would basically be like God saying "Here are the laws of nature. This is how stuff works. Oh wait a second, let me just change that a bit. Ok go. No wait, I'll just pause that parameter. Ok I've done what I needed to do. I'll push the play button again. Right, as you were."
So maybe 'deception' isn't the right word. But if He did temporarily suspend His laws of nature then that would be confusing for people to understand and I don't think God would want to confuse us.

God's hardly obliged to wait until we understand everything He does before He gets around to doing it.

I don't think there is any kind of explicit declaration of the laws of nature in the Bible. God didn't etch the Theory of Everything on the back of the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai. (Drats that He didn't, too.) Instead, we are told that nature declares the glory of God, and that God sends rain and sun on the righteous and wicked alike. We are told, in other words, that some kind of objective reality, that looks the same to both believer and unbeliever, exists, to the glory of God. That doesn't prevent miracles; it does mean that miracles, when they occur, must be detectable as physical phenomena with physical consequences.

 

[crawfish]

I think it would basically be like God saying "Here are the laws of nature. This is how stuff works. Oh wait a second, let me just change that a bit. Ok go. No wait, I'll just pause that parameter. Ok I've done what I needed to do. I'll push the play button again. Right, as you were."
So maybe 'deception' isn't the right word. But if He did temporarily suspend His laws of nature then that would be confusing for people to understand and I don't think God would want to confuse us.

I don't buy that. If you look at the bible, you'll see that the vast majority of miracles are one-time events used to show God's glory publicly through an interceder (Christ, disciples, prophets, etc). There would be no need for God to work through our natural law, and no reason for us to expect Him to. I'm sure God uses natural law to an extent - for instance, in the virgin birth we can assume that God produced either sperm or a fertilized egg that Mary carried to term. But where did it come from? Did God tap into something innate in some human women that allow them to spontaneously generate their own sperm? Or was the sperm/egg created ex nihlo, in a manner impossible to us through the laws that govern us? In the end, I see no reason to think that there needs to be something along the lines of the former option to make God "non-deceptive". The latter is completely satisfying.

Have you read Edwin Abbot's book "Flatland"? I think that may have the best explanation of how a higher being could do things seemingly impossible to a lower class of beings in a way that is quite natural to him.