Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[Ryantology]

For those who do not believe in miracles, I proppse the following for discussion:
from Josh McDowell's book New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p. 359-360
J.W.N. Sullivan says, "that since the publication of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and Planck's endeavors with "black-body radiation," scientists are faced with "the vicissitudes of so-called natural law in an uncharted and unobstructed universe."
James Moore says that "today scientists will admit that no one knows enough about 'natural law' to say that any event is necessarily a violation of it. They agree that an individual's non-statistical sample of time and space is hardly sufficient ground on which to base immutable generalizations concerning the nature of the entire universe. Today, what we commonly term 'natural law' is in fact only our inductive and statistical descriptions of natural phenomena."

Okay, so what you're saying is that there are no miracles, there are just things we don't understand and some people decide to term these events miracles in lieu of waiting to find out what really happened. Got it.

John Montgomery denotes that he anti-supernatural position is both "philosophically and scientifically irresponsible." First of all, philosophically: "because no one below the status of god could know the universe so well as to eliminate miracles a priori."

This is a weak position. Even though precisely zero alleged miracles have ever been confirmed outside of whatever belief dreamed them up, it is irresponsible to to suggest that miracles are impossible. What's even more irresponsible is treating the idea of miracles as if it is worthy of actual consideration when, as noted, we have yet to see even a single miracle which survives any kind of critical scrutiny.

Secondly, scientifically: "because in th age of Einsteinian physics (so different from the world of Newtonian absolutes in which Hume formulated his classic anti-miraculous argument) the universe has opened up to all possibilities, 'any attempt to state a "universal law of causation" must prove futile and only careful consideration of the empirical testimony for a miraculous event can determine whether in fact it has or has not occurred."

This, again, actually succeeds only in taking the supernatural element out of so-called miracles. They are just physical events we currently do not understand. This has, thus far, been the case with every single supernatural event which has been subjected to science: eventually, we learn that plagues are caused by microbes and hurricanes are caused by specific wind and moisture combinations. Neither of them is magic spun by an angry God. Science, so far, has a perfect track record when faced with the supernatural. Not one single alleged supernatural event has ever been tested, scrutinized, and verified to have certainly not had a natural cause.

"But can the modern man accept a "miracle" such as the resurrection? The answer is a surprising one: The resurrection has to be accepted by us just because we are modern men, men living in the Einstein relativistic age.

This is a complete non-sequitor. I don't have to accept a resurrection from 2,000 years ago even if resurrection was verified tomorrow; it does not follow that verifying the possibility of resurrection proves that Jesus was resurrected. Of course, we still have no resurrections on record, so the point seems to be moot at present.

For us, unlike the Newtonian epoch, the universe is not longer a tight safe predictable playing field in which we know all the rules. Since Einstein no modern has had the right to rule out the possibility of events because of prior knowledge of "natural." The only way we can know whether an event can occur is to see whether in fact it has occurred. The problem of "miracles", then. must be solved in the realm of historical investigation, not in the realm of philosophical speculation."

The problem of miracles is that a lot of people, even educated ones, understand that unlikely doesn't mean impossible when arguing against an atheist (unless you're Statler Waldorf, anyway), but then conveniently forget this when it is turned the other way and applied to events that are unlikely to occur in nature. They must have a supernatural cause, they say. No natural explanation we have today fits, they say.

Vincent Taylor warns against too great a dogmatism with regard to the miraculous: "It is far too late today to dismiss the question by saying that "miracles are impossible":; that stage of the discussion is definitely past. Science takes a much humbler and truer view of natural law that was characteristic of former times; we now know that eh "laws of Nature" are convenient summaries of existing knowledge. Nature is not a "closed system," and miracles are not "intrusions" in to an "established order." In the last fifty years we have been staggered too often by discoveries which at one time were pronounced impossible. ... This change of thought does not, of course, accredit the miraculous; but it does mean that, given the right conditions, miracles are not impossible; no scientific or philosophic dogma stand in the way.

Miracles, as defined by Christianity, would (in fact, must) necessarily be intrusions on the natural order. That is what a miracle is. If it is part of the natural order, even if that element of the natural order is not understood at present, it is not a miracle, nor is it supernatural. It's just a plain old natural event with causes currently beyond our abilities to explain. Just as earthquakes, weather, and disease were until as recently as 200 years ago.