Miracles. Hmmmm. I don't find them or the evidence of them compelling. I am more into those things that people like Dawkins write about. His newest book, The Magic of Reality, sums up much of what he has been writing about since The Selfish Gene. Miracles are extremely low on his list---as well they ought to be. Perhaps the universe IS a pretty dull place. But, as a realist, I find that somehow comforting. Just me, you see. I guess I read too much. And I'm not talking about faith, fiction or fairy tales. I prefer science, facts and, well, reality. Miracles? Let the Pope deals with those. His arena, not mine. It seems a miracle to me that he is Pope---but that is a miracle of a different colour. Isn't it?

The nature of a miracle is a matter of perspective. For an atheist, a miracle would have to be unnatural (against the laws of nature) and hence not possible. For a theist, though, a miracle is natural for God; the fact that it is not possible for humans is the point: God can do things that humans can not.
Is it a matter of cause and effact? Strangely, atheists and theists will agree that it is. While atheists will state that a miracle does not have a cause, and hence cannnot occur, a theist will state that a miracle does have a cause, viz. God.
Ronald Green
"Nothing Matters - a book about nothing" (iff-Books)

Whether miracles are possible or not is not a question for the "laws of physics" or "laws of science." We cannot even prove that these so-called laws are in fact universally true, we can only show them true so far as we can test. It is much more of a question of the underlying assumption - atheists and "strong rationalists" consider miracles impossible because they assume there is nothing outside the physical, observable universe that they believe to be completely subject to certain laws, which they further believe they know completely.
A theist (like myself) does not make that set of assumptions. Recognizing that there is a God means recognizing an agent not bound by these "laws." Instances of miracles are rare because He chooses to do them rarely, but to say they are impossible is an unprovable claim. Miracles are by definition unique events and therefore not repeatable or testable. You have to get out of the lab coat of the scientist and into the cardigan of the historian, or the suit of the detective. Weigh the accounts, the testimony, and the probabilities, and make an assessment. That is all you can do.
Even science does not have nearly as many real "absolutes" as the popular imagination likes to think it has.

I find nature to be a miracle, as beautifully and equitably divine as One gets.
=
MJA

I remember Mirugai's name and have always valued the input of that contributor to this blog. I do not believe in luck or miracles---to me, those notions are borne of superstition. Call me whatever you may, but there is something between luck and superstition---Jung's notion of synchronicity. Now that, I have some experience with. The thing about synchronicity is that it just happens. Luck and superstition seem to have nothing to do with it. It has found me, once or twice (maybe four times) in life. If you want to call me superstitious, go right ahead. But superstition defies reason. Synchronicity merely defies probability---big gap there---don't you think?

Where are the Miracles?
The universe is truly boundless except for the laws we ourselves have created and placed around us.
This box we ourselves have made confines us and keeps us from the miracles we truly are.
How many laws are there?
Can they be counted?
And where oh where does freedom fit in?
It does not!
The miracle is outside the box,
Our own self evidence.
I found the edge of the box One day,
Looked over and afraid...Slipped and fell,
And now the miracle is free,
Is,
=
MJA

Interesting discussion. I lean towards the view that miracles are abundant, but perspectives are limited.
Another point: science is faith-based. My Dad & I had this discussion many times -- have we ever seen atoms, molecules, or for that matter the Earth from space? Not personally -- we take the word of others to be true (or pics/videos which w/current tech could easily be falsified.)
Similarly, science is not actually a compilation of facts -- it's a compilation of theories about observed/recorded phenomena which are subject to many flaws, most notably the flaws of the theoreticians and their framework/worldview.
To continue, NAZI's and many USA/Euro scientists have conducted the cruelest experiments on unwilling victims (NAZI's experimented w/sterilization & many forms of vile surgeries, plus we know of Tuskeegee experiments & now Guatamala STD experiments) in pursuit of 'science'. Much of science continues these practices today on unwilling animal subjects, from genetic experiments to grafting & organ farming to cross-breeding & vivisection & brain experimentation on living creatures).
Worldview is a key factor for all these developments.
While I like many of the developments of science, I would like an option to collectively choose to not pursue various technologies which are like a 'Pandoras Box' of potentially evil outcomes -- nuclear weapons, GM foods (on a massive scale), and bio-war (virii & killer bacteria) are among my top list of BAD science pursuits.
Personally, I think that the products of billions of years of evolution are miraculous. I know of no evidence to show that evolution is the sole factor in current human development (ie could aliens have intervened? Etc.) Also I've experienced psychic & spiritual phenomena which I can't explain scientifically.
Last point: science requires repeatable processes for verification -- it uses deductive reasoning to figure things out. However, the possibility of unique occurrences and singularities which can't be repeated are challenging for our science of today to handle. No ways to test or repeat. Similarly, research can be skewed by manipulating the participants, the factors, or locations. In many studies, the results are hidden inside the margin of error.
So if molecules are galaxies, if animals have souls, if the Earth &/or Sun are conscious living creatures, if water is sentient, etc -- all this and more are phenomena that science can't answer today. Same w/divine concepts; using science to tackle them is like using a speedometer to measure someone's emotions. Wrong machine, wrong device, and ultimately wrong approach.
rekzkarz.com
ps: After I submitted this comment, the machine couldn't accept my post bc my homepage listed didn't have http in front. What a great analogy for how framing affects what we can accept as input!! A little less strict parameters on the input data @ more flexibility on the results -- but some data don't fit our requirements.

Mirugai: thanks for the response. Ultimately, assertion that there is a God, or that there is not, is an assertion of faith. Neither position can be proven beyond rational doubt. So it becomes a question of weighing evidence and assigning what Alvin Plantinga calls "warranted" belief. The evidence that warrants my faith in God comes from four places: 1) personal experience, which is admittedly wishy-washy since many people have personal experiences; 2) the testimony of other believers, which has similar weaknesses but also the strength of massive numbers; 3) the universe itself, the existence of which indicates some kind of First Cause outside itself, since I don't think there can be such a thing as a causeless effect; and 4) most of all, the evidence of the Resurrection of Christ, which as a historian I find very compelling upon close examination. This may not convince everyone, but it has been enough to convince me.
When we think about miracles as events that defy the "laws" of physics or of science, it might occur to us to wonder why there are such "laws" in the first place, or why we expect there to be such. There is no inherent requirement that there be "laws" by which the universe runs. Yet it happens to have them, and we happen to be able to discover them. In fact, it turns out that we can use mathematics, an invention of our limited minds, to explore them. Why is this so? Should it be so? What I'm getting at is that we live in a universe that, near as we can tell, runs on a very consistent set of rules, which rules are understandable to us and amenable to our discovery and even manipulation. The whole existence of science is dependent on this fact. Yet science cannot answer why it should be so. It is a question for philosophy and/or theology.
In my view, this is so because God made this universe for us (and maybe others to, but for us certainly). Further, he is a God of order, so the universe does have consistent rules - and I think it was this underlying belief that explains why true science developed in the West rather than elsewhere. And he works through them most of the time because they are his rules, after all - they would be pointless if he violated them all the time. It is his nature to work out of sight, or as Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, to allow his creation to push him out of the world and onto the cross. This is the paradox of at least the Christian faith - an event like the crucifixion, which to any observer at the time would have seemed like the most godless possible, was in fact God acting in great power (George L. Murphy develops this thought much further in "The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross"). I think many of my fellow believers don't thoroughly consider what this means about the nature of God.
Several posts here state that we believe in miracles because we want to, because we need that comfort of "knowing" we are more than just dust, that there is a higher power looking out for us, etc. The question I would pose is: why do we want that? Why do we need it? If this world is all there is, and the way it runs is the way it has always run, and therefore it is the only reality any human has ever known, why do we imagine something else? There are fish that live in caves, that never know anything but darkness, that have no reference point for anything but total darkness, in fact they don't even have eyes. We're like cave fish somehow dreaming of light. Why?

To Light
How to see a miracle:
If you haven't seen a miracle, you don't need new glasses or even an eye exam. Simply try removing all of the uncertainties of theories and faiths that obstruct you vision or view.
Once uncertainty is removed the miracle of true light will shine in and reflect out equally from you.
Let there be light!
Clearly or Truly yours,
=
MJA

I left a comment on one of Jon Horvitz's posts from brain, mind and other things. The post was allied with the God notion and being Jewish, Christian or otherwise. I stated that recent emotional stress (my wife's illness) had evoked a memory and an epiphany regarding God, belief, miracles and so on. I opined that people survive catastrophic illness, not because they believe in the power of an omnipotent God and Its benevolence towards those who are faithful and devoted, but because they believe in THEIR ability to overcome their illness. This allies with Arthur Schopenhauer and another philosopher, Fred---whose last name I can never recall how to spell (sounds like: neet-che). Both Art and Fred placed emphasis on human will.
Larry Dossey has written about such things as the power of prayer. Others, including anthropologists and the like, have discussed shamanism and all manner of mind-over-matter theories and arguments. As I mentioned in my comment on Jon Horvitz' post, I think Dr. Norman Vincent Peale wrote eloquently on The Power of Positive Thinking. But, Dr. Peale was foremost a cleric. And, I have to at least infer that he was in the corner of the omnipotent, benevolent God who rewards devotion. In this sense, Peale was fulfilling his anointed role. As for the rest, I just do not think so. We cannot measure these things, so there will always be the faithful and the faithless; believers and skeptics. Thanksgiving is coming up---have some turkey, dressing and a beer if you want to. Who knows: If you pray hard enough, your heartburn might go away. Or, you could take Prilosec---before you oink out. That's what I would do---if I planned to oink out.

mirugai: at some point it does in fact come down to faith. I think Fred got at something important as well...we live in a universe of order, and have focused on the laws of that order to the point that we have mostly ceased to wonder why there should be such things in the first place. I think pre-scientific people, faced with this same reality of a universe of order, focused more on why it should be so. This drives a lot of the change in perception.
Looking at Paul van Pelt's point above as well, positive thinking may in fact have something to do with healing-related "miracles" in some cases. Other times, miracles happen to people who don't believe and aren't at all expecting it. So another case. And vice versa: Nitszche's belief in his own superiority did not prevent him from going nuts. And then there are miracles that have nothing to do with health at all.
I think one reason we struggle with miracles is that we try to consider them as phenomena. As such, their inconsistency is hard to take. If we look at them not as mere physical events, but as the work of a Person, we get past that hurdle. The down side, I suppose, is that they are no longer a category of things that can be confirmed or denied all together. The up side is that each report can now be taken on its own evidence, without getting all wrapped up over violations of the "laws" of the universe. One should not credit every report of a miracle one hears (I certainly don't), but honest investigation of them would require at least a temporary willing suspension of disbelief.

Rather than faith,
Miracles come down to a point of absolute truth.
A truth so infinite,
It is immeasurable.
Nature is this Way,
=
MJA