Science and Biblical Miracles

ASA --- 1955

Science and Biblical Miracles
RUSSELL MAATMAN, PH.D
Haddonfield, N. J.

From: JASA 7 (March 1955): 7-8.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1955/JASA3-55Maatmann.html

The concept of Biblical miracles is not accepted by unbelievers, many
of whom have vague reasons for rejecting Biblical miracles. There is
no doubt that unbelieving scientists attempt to be carefully logical
in this matter. Unbelieving scientists say that the concept of
Biblical miracles is contrary to natural science and that one must
accept either miracles or natural science--not both. They
unhesitatingly reject miracles and accept natural science. But these
unbelieving scientists go even one step further: they accuse
scientists who are Christians of being inconsistent when they hold to
both Biblical miracles and natural science.

Now, this is a serious accusation and we as believing scientists must
meet this challenge, for we must hold to Biblical miracles. If we let
them go, the Christian faith is lost and the unbeliever knows it.

Christians have given two types of answers to this accusation. These
will be discussed and because they seem to be inadequate a third
answer will be proposed.

Miracles Outside of Physical Law

Some Christians have admitted that the Christian position is
apparently inconsistent. Cannot God violate the natural law He
creates? For these Christians the objection of the unbeliever to this
position in this matter offers no problem at all.

One objection to this answer is that we are put in the position of
saying that God performs two basically different kinds of acts. It is
as if He created two natural laws which apparently conflict. We
cannot prove He did not create two laws, but it does seem that making
such an assumption weakens the Christian position. It would be well
not to be satisfied with such an assumption.

Another objection to the idea that miracles are violations or
suspensions of natural law is that this idea omits the relationship
there is between miracles and the spiritual world. Many miracles are
interactions between the created spiritual world and the physical
world. Consider, for example, the appearance of the angel to Balaam
when Balaam was on his way to the encampment of the Israelites. We
must consider the appeafance of the angel to be a miracle, for it
certainly was an event outside of natural law as man knows it. It
would be difficult to conceive of a definition of miracle that would
not include this event. But this event took place in both the
spiritual world and the physical world. The two worlds met at this
point. At this point in time the events in one of these worlds could
not be understood without presupposing the existence of the other
world. At this time Balaam's donkey spoke. Was not this also a
miracle? It is not foolish to assume this was not also an interaction
between the spiritual world and the physical world? By some power we
do not see, the animal spoke. In the same way there are many Biblical
miracles which are interactions between the spiritual world and the
physical world. We neglect this interaction when we say miracles are
violations of created natural law.

A third objection to this view of miracles is that defining a miracle
as a violation or suspension of natural law is necessarily a vague
statement. No part of natural law we know is ever known with
certainty, and therefore this definition is also vague, inexact, and
unscientific.
Miracles Within Physical Law

Other Christians give a second general answer to the charge of the
unbeliever that Christians are inconsistent when they hold to both
Biblical miracles and natural science. According to this answer
miracles actuallv do occur within physical law. There is therefore no
conflict.

Probably some Biblical miracles can be explained more or less-by
modern science. But some Biblical miracles can never be explained.
Certainly Christians are not going to say that the appearances of
angels were evidences of some physical law we do not know. For we
know that angels are spiritual beings. Even if we consider only other
miraculous events, it seems to be far too much to expect that these
hundreds of miracles can be understood by man. One need only think of
reviving the dead, multiplying food and healing the sick with a
word-sometimes without the prior knowledge of the sick person.

But there are Christians who say that while miracles occur within
physical law, miracles are only statistically improbable events. This
view utilizes the fact revealed by modern physics that exact
prediction is impossible. Miracles are unexpected, but not
impossible, events. This view is not tenable because the approximate
number of these "miracles" can be calculated and it is far too small
to account for the frequency of Biblical miracles. Few consider
seriously this concept of miracles.
A Real Natural Law

While Christians must accept Biblical miracles, there seem to be
difficulties with either important Christian view concerning them.
More than a mere definition of Biblical miracles is needed. A better
concept of natural law must be obtained.

If true natural law is the law that, in the scientific sense,
"predicts" events in creation, then when we speak of true natural law
it should refer to all of creation-to the created spiritual world as
well as to the physical world. This grand natural law that only God
can know is the simple, all-embracing law of which man's generalized
laws are but feeble prototypes. This true law correlates all events
in both worlds -miraculous and non-miraculous. Because there is this
true law the scientists must eventually fail in his efforts to unify
all events into one grand scheme.

Accordingly, this definition of miracles is suggested: Miracles are
events that evoke amazement in observers, that are not understood by
any observer, and that teach men-among other things-that God knows
more about natural law than do these observers.

Refuting Attacks

With this concept of Biblical miracles we may be able to answer some
attacks unbelievers make on them. First, the charge that we are
inconsistent in accepting both natural science and miracles is not a
correct charge because we have a broader view of creation than do
unbelieving scientists when they refuse to go beyond the "universe".
In short, we have a different starting point. We show unbelievers
that we cannot discuss with them this matter of inconsistency because
we do not have the common ground that is necessary for discussion.
(Of course, the ultimate starting point upon which Christians and
unbelievers dif f er is not the question of the existence of Creation
as the Christian knows it, but the existence of the Triune,, creating
God as the Christian knows Him. For the present discussion it is
sufficent to consider that Christians and unbelievers diverge on the
matter of Creation). Christians are not guilty of inconsistency, but
unbelievers are guilty of narrowness.

A second type of attack that is made on Biblical miracles is that
given enough time, science may be able to "explain" all of them.
Then, says unbelievers, there will be no more miracles to talk about.
Christians know that the Bible indicates some miracles cannot be
understood by man. But what about the other miracles? Is the number
of miracles decreasing? Science does occasionally explain Biblical
miracles in terms of modern concepts. But, according to the
definition of miracles that is proposed here, even such events remain
miracles. The important thing is that God showed observers He knew
more about nature than they did. If modern science finds a fish large
enough to swallow alive a man like Jonah, that does not mean the
event is not a Biblical miracle. It is no less astounding to us than
it was before the large fish was found. We know now that when Moses
sweetened the bitter desert water at Marah with a tree, he might have
been using an ion exchange resin. There is no reason that our wonder
at the event should therefore be at all diminished, or that we should
not consider it a miracle. If we marvel less at such an ,, explained"
event than than an "unexplained" miracle, we show that we forget that
basically-as scientists well know-all events are unexplainable. As
man probes deeper and deeper into nature, he realizes more and more
that he can never have basic knowledge about any system he studies.
For example, the scientist can never answer the ultimate "why" of
matter. When God shows us a miracle, He shows us that He does have
the ultimate "why". He causes miraculous events and non-miraculous
events. Is God any less a providential God in the incident at Marah
because we now know of ion exchange resins?

A third type of attack on Biblical miracles is made by the skeptic,
David Hume. He said that if he observes an event occurring one
thousand times one way, and one time another way, he will reject the
lone observation. It might be a faulty observation. Thus, the
majority wins. Miracles therefore will always be rejected. If the
events in the physical world were isolated from anything else that
existed, Hume would have a strong argument. But his argument contains
within it an assumption which rules out interaction between the
spiritual world and the physical world. Christians say some
spiritiual power-angelic or more directly the hand of God-kept Peter
from sinking when he walked on the water. If we assume that the hand
of God never does such things and that there are no angels, then we
agree with the argument of Hume. We would then say people were
deceived when they thought they saw Peter walking on the water.

With the concept of miracles that has been proposed we might attack
the ideas of at least some unbelievers. We know that God has created
a spiritual world because He has shown us some miracles. Balaam knew
that there were angels because he saw one. Some unbelievers deny the
possibility of miracles but do believe there is a created spiritual
world. Very likely close examination in individual cases will reveal
such persons accept the created spiritual world because they also-in
some way-accept at least one miracle. The existence of the created
spiritual world and the existence of Biblical miracles stand or fall
together. Christianity cannot be accepted or rejected piece-meal;
existence or non-existence of miracles and the created spiritual
world is one example. Christians would do well to recognize the
absolute exclusiveness and complete otherness of Christianity.

Unbelievers insist we be consistent. We should ask this of them.
Conclusion

The Christian believes God created the spiritual world and the
physical world. Some events are common to the two worlds. These are
miracles. The complete description of all the events of the two
worlds is the grand, true natural law that only God can know. This
creation of God is harmonious and no events conflict with true
natural law. Miracles are an integral part of God's creation.

----------

Miracles http://www.tektonics.org/TK-M.html
    * Articles
        * <http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nutsyjesus.html>Were Jesus'
healings a matter of reversing "conversion disorders"?
        * <http://www.tektonics.org/lp/painet01.html#pagmir>If we
accept miracles from the Bible, why not also those reported by
Josephus and others? -- see also this excellent
<http://www.christian-thinktank.com/mq2.html>article [Off Site]
        * <http://www.tektonics.org/qt/remsberg01.html#mir>"The laws
of nature are immutable!!" -- a brief "hold on a second" commentary
on this skeptical objection that I'd like skeptics to reply to.
        * <http://www.christian-thinktank.com/5felled.html>"If there
were all these miracles, there should have been more records of
them!" [Off Site] -- part of a larger article
        *
<http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/miracles.html>The
Problem Of Miracles: A Historical And Philosophical Perspective [Off Site]
    * Books to Read
        * <http://www.tektonics.org/books/geivmiracrvw.html>In
Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God's Actions in
History by R. Douglas Geivett --
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0830815287/tektonministries>buy
this book from Amazon.com
~ Janice
Received on Tue Jan 17 14:55:53 2006