It’s a Festivus Miracle!

December 5, 2005 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009). Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (562)

Festivus miracles usually refer to coincidences or random
occurrences (see the Wikipedia definition). However, most people often mean
more than that when they speak of how a loved one was abnormally healed of a
disease, or how a friend was saved from a disastrous car accident in some
bizarre and unexpected way. Christians often point to resurrection of the dead
as perhaps the greatest miracle occurring in history. But what do we mean when
using the word ‘miracle’?

Some people have tried to define ‘miracle’ as the bending or
breaking of a law of nature (call this definition ‘A’). For instance, a law of
nature might be that life cannot generate from non-life (abiogenesis). In the
case of resurrections, then, the event would appear to break a law of nature.

But let’s also define this term so we can get to the bottom
of the issue. What is a law of nature? Wikipedia tells us that laws of nature
(or physical laws) are true, universal, simple, absolute, eternal, etc. They
are “scientific generalizations based on empirical observations.” In these
terms, it sure sounds as though such laws can never be compromised, thwarted,
or broken in any way, thus, ‘A’ miracles cannot happen.

I believe William Lane Craig has offered the most helpful
definition- “Idealization; what happens under ideal conditions when there are
no interfering factors.” This entails all the previous notions of what a law of
nature is, but also shows the prospect of interference. This is necessary due
to the fact that we interfere with the laws of nature all the time. Take, for
instance, the law of gravity. Given ideal conditions an object should fall do
to the pull of gravity. Sure enough, when I throw my car keys in the air, they
fall back down. But what happens when I catch my keys in mid-air so they no
longer are falling? Did I break the law of gravity? Of course not, but I did
interfere with it.

Much like the idea that someone believing my catching my car
keys breaks a law of nature is hogwash, so to is the idea that miracles break
or bend the laws of nature (definition ‘A’). I propose we look at miracles in a
different way- what transpires when a law of nature is interfered with in an
abnormal manner. Something like ‘abnormal’ is necessary in the definition so we
do not end up calling my catching my car keys a miracle (I assure you it is
quite normal). However, we might consider a gal answering ‘yes’ to my proposing
a date a miracle since it is an abnormal event, and contrary to what some may
believe it would not break a natural law.

This second definition of miracles seems to be what
we’ve really meant all along. It upholds what we believe to be true of natural
laws, and also makes miracles appear more reasonable. Thus, if Jesus wanted to
raise someone from the dead (as Christians claim He did), all He had to do was
interfere in some abnormal way with what was naturally occurring. For the
non-theist, my hope is that this explains how miracles are reasonable in light
of the existence of a Being more powerful than we are (i.e., more options are
available for this more powerful Being).

Related posts:

1. Scott Clark On Natural Law And Gay Marriage
2. Can One Prove the Existence of a Miracle?
3. The Dark Side Of Divine Command Theory?: A Response To Erik Wielenberg - Part Two
4. The Miracle of Regeneration
5. Book Review: All Old Testament Laws Cancelled by Greg Gibson
6. Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

Posted in Main Page, Philosophy, Roger's Posts, Theology