Doctrine of Creation (Part 15): Assessment of the Debate

3.  Assessment of the debate

We saw last time that the 19th century collapse of the belief in miracles among biblical scholars had its roots in the 18th century and even earlier. Today we want to begin some assessment of those reasons that led to skepticism concerning the occurrence and identification of miracles.

1. Natural laws and miracles

First, the Newtonian world-machine. You'll remember that, according to these Newtonian thinkers, a miracle could only be regarded as a violation of the laws of nature; but God had established these immutable laws of nature, and so a violation of those laws would be impossible.

Many contemporary defenders of miracles have said that the advent of modern physics subverts this picture of the Newtonian world-machine. We no longer live in the sort of deterministic universe that was described by Newtonian physics. Indeed, in quantum physics, there is an element of indeterminacy in nature, that is to say, there is an indeterminacy that is inherent and ineliminable from nature. We cannot, for example, know the exact position and momentum of any particle in the universe. Therefore, contrary to Laplace's boast, it is in principle impossible to predict the exact state of the universe at any time in the past or future based upon a knowledge of nature's laws and the knowledge of the present condition of the universe. The universe has this inherent indeterminacy built into it.

Some have suggested that because the picture of a deterministic world is now gone from contemporary physics this allows room for miracles on God’s part. I would agree that psychologically the demise of the deterministic picture of the universe might dispose folks to be more open emotionally to miracles. But really, if you think about it, any event that would be miraculous in Newtonian physics (say, the feeding of the five thousand) would be so extraordinarily improbable even in quantum physics that it would have to be regarded as miraculous if it actually occurred. In other words, quantum physics could open the door a tiny crack for allowing these anomalous events to occur, but they would still be so highly improbable that it really would not allow much scope for the plausibility of identifying some event as a miracle. In fact, attributing miracles to quantum indeterminacy, if you think about it, threatens to turn miracles into freaks of nature, not acts of God. They are just the result of indeterminate quantum processes in nature, and that surely is not what we mean by a miracle. So while it may be true that we no longer live in a universe that is governed by deterministic laws, I don’t think that really goes much distance toward a defense of the possibility and credibility of miracles.

Rather, I think we should challenge the idea that miracles are, properly speaking, violations of the laws of nature. This is an extremely prejudicial description of a miracle, when you think about it. It connotes the idea of God’s breaking a criminal law or, even worse, God’s violating Mother Nature. It makes God look like he is involved in some sort of criminal activity. So psychologically the idea of God’s violating the laws of nature is one that I think we would be well rid of.

When you examine what the laws of nature are, I think it becomes quite clear that miracles, properly speaking, are not violations of nature’s laws. Why? Because nature’s laws are statements of what will happen under certain ideal conditions. The laws of nature are idealizations of what will happen under certain given conditions. But very often, those conditions don’t obtain. For example, I am told that potassium and chloride will naturally combust when combined. That would be a consequence of a law of nature. But we have both of these elements in our body, and yet our bodies don’t combust! Why not? Because there are other natural factors interfering with the combustion of these two elements, so they can safely co-exist in our body. Thus, what the laws of nature describe are what would happen under certain highly idealized conditions. But, if there are other natural factors interfering, then the predicted event won’t occur.

In other words, the laws of nature have implicit ceteris paribus conditions in them. Ceteris paribus means “everything else being equal.” All else being equal, the laws of nature describe what will happen under certain conditions. So the laws of nature describe what will happen all things being equal (ceteris paribus) under these idealized conditions. But if some natural agent or factor is interfering, then all things are not equal –  the idealized conditions don’t obtain, and therefore the predicted event will not occur. In such a case, the law is not violated – the event doesn’t break the law – rather the law just doesn’t apply because the ceteris paribus conditions don’t obtain.

Now apply this to a miracle. In the case of a miracle, obviously if a supernatural agent is interfering, then once again the law won't apply. So these ceteris paribus conditions must include not only statements about natural agents’ not interfering but also that there is no interference on the part of any supernatural agent as well. So the laws of nature are idealizations that describe what will happen under certain conditions if no natural or supernatural factors are interfering. So when a miracle occurs, it doesn't violate the laws of nature because the laws of nature describe what will happen if there is no supernatural agent interfering with the conditions. Therefore, miracles should not be considered to be violations of nature's laws.

What, then, is a miracle then on this understanding? A miracle, I would say, is an event which lies beyond the causal powers of nature at the particular time and place of its occurrence. At a particular time and place, the natural causes that are operative at that time and place don't have the productive capacity to produce that event. So if that event occurs, then that event must be ascribed to a supernatural agency – it would be a miracle. To put it very simply, a miracle is a naturally impossible event. It's an event which the natural causes at any time and place would not have the capacity to produce.

That implies that miracles are relative to the time and place. For example, rain is not in and of itself miraculous. Relative to the causal factors at a certain time and place rain is to be expected. But on another occasion where the weather conditions are not adequate to produce rain, then if someone like Elijah prays for rain and all of a sudden it begins to rain, then that would be a miraculous event. At that time and place, the natural causes that are present are not adequate – they don't have the capacity – to produce rain. So if rain occurs, it would be a miraculous event caused by a supernatural agent.

So it seems to me that miracles are not violations of nature's laws; rather, miracles are events which lie outside the productive capacity of the natural causes at a particular time and place.

If what I've said is correct then the next question should be –What could make a naturally impossible event happen? The answer to that question seems obvious – God! If God exists, then miracles are possible. If there is a transcendent creator and designer of the universe who brought all matter and energy into being and who set and established the laws of nature, then such a transcendent being would obviously have the capacity to produce events within nature which lie beyond the productive capacity of nature itself. Given the existence of God, miracles, it seems to me, are obviously possible.

In order to show that miracles are impossible a person would therefore have to show that atheism is true. He would have to have some sort of argument for atheism because as long as it's even possible that God exists, then you've got to be open to the possibility that God has acted miraculously in the universe. Of course, orthodox Christians do believe in the existence of God – a transcendent creator and designer of the universe – and therefore our belief in the possibility of miracles, it seems to me, is perfectly rational.

So, in response to the Newtonian world-machine, what we have to do is to define miracles properly – not as violations of nature's laws, but rather simply as events that are beyond the productive capacity of natural causes at a certain time and place. If God exists, then such events are obviously possible. The question will then become: do we have any good evidence to think that such miraculous events have actually occurred?