Travo5

A common definition of a miracle that I hear is an occurence that falls beyond the scope of natural laws. My question is this: How can anyone be justified in stating that an incident lies beyond natural law? If one is able to claim that event X is impossible according to the laws of nature, wouldn't that presuppose an absolute knowledge of the laws of nature? If this is the case, then calling any event a miracle seems pretentious.

Now, as I am becoming more secularized, my outlooks and perceptions are gradually shifting. For the reasons above, I would rather not label any event a miracle. Instead, I would guess that the most appropriate course of action would to say that there is not an explanation available within our current context of knowledge. I might be wrong, but prima facie, this outlook seems more legitimate. Once again, criticisms are greatly appreciated.

Regards,
Travis

simian

I got into a discussion a couple of years back about "miracles". I referred to them as magic. The person I was carrying on the discussion with was offended, told me I had no respect for her religion, etc. I responded by saying that I had no other word for the events she was describing, but if she had a suggestion I would consider using it. One minor detail, it had to apply to "supernatural" events outside of her religion as well as in it - the example I gave was the statues of Hindu gods drinking milk. She did not suggest any other word....

Simian

Travo5

Ah, yes, the Hindu milk "miracle". What exactly happened during this craze? Was it ever proven to be a farce? I really have not done much research on the topic...

Regards,
Travis

sakrilege

The statues absorbed the milk.

<a href="http://www.mindspring.com/~anson/randi-hotline/1995/0028.html" target="_blank">Thirsty statue update...</a>

<a href="http://www.cicap.org/en_artic/at101019.htm" target="_blank">Milky Miracles: the drinking statue</a>

Susan

edited to add links.

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: sak ]

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: sak ]</p>

Albion

Well, it must be getting pretty hard for the Catholic Church to verify all these miracles that are needed before they can make new saints. I wonder if they're really using the scientific method to test them or if they've fallen back on the subjective sorts of miracles.

cydonia

One way to look at it is if hypothetically psychics are real, premonitions are real, esp is real etc. then they really can't be paranormal, can they? If (if) they exist in nature, what would be so "Supernatural" about them?

Travo5

Susan, thank you for the websites. I will read them tomorrow when I have some free time.


Hi Cydonia! I appreciate the response!

This is precisely the nature of the supposed problem. Granted these phenomena did genuinely occur, there would be no objective method to discern whether a supernatural event/intervention has taken place. If anybody claims that "Event X" is a supernatural event then they are confessing omniscience about natural law. In my opinion, the best conclusion is to say that there is currently no explanation for the occurence within our current context of knowledge. By the way, if my reasoning is fallacious, then please, chip away.

Regards,
Travis

MortalWombat

It must not be, apparantly. John Paul II has canonized more saints than all previous popes combined. Someone must have written a software application that makes the verification process more automated or something.

Ab_Normal

Re: canonization. From what I've seen in the mainstream media, most of the miracles are of the "my kid was sick, I prayed to X, the kid got better" variety. There don't seem to be any good apparitions anymore.

Travo5

I think I agree at the conclusion that these accounts mean nothing significant. Say somebody prays to Allah about their child's terminal ailment, and the child subsequently heals. Also, another family prays to God for their child, and that child recovers afterward. At what point do we know whether God or Allah are healing? Both families prayed, and both children were healed. Thus, no supernatural conclusion can be drawn.

I prefer to go with a naturalistic explanation and say that the child simply recovered. There is no way to verify supernatural involvement in any earthly occurence. Appealing to the supernatural as an explanation is a claim of omniscience of the natural.