Sunday, March 8, 2009
On Miracles
Wintery Knight has an interesting post on how to argue with non-believers regarding the resurrection of Jesus. However, more than the post itself, what interested me was the issue he and a commenter touch on underneath it, regarding "front loading":
I have tons to say on this, but let me right now give a very succinct argument that I find irresistible. Maybe Wintery Knight or someone else can show me it's not so open-and-shut. But here goes:
(1) The "laws of physics" are regularities that humans think they have discovered; they are apparent patterns that exist in the observations of physical phenomena.
(2) If one really understands the character of physical law--as explained by the master, Richard Feynman--then nature can never violate the laws of physics. If scientists repeatedly observe a violation of, say, the conservation of energy, then the "law" wasn't really a law.
(3) Therefore it is impossible for God to "intervene" in nature and "perform a miracle," if "miracle" means "matter behaving not in accordance with the true laws of physics."
Like I said, I have a heck of a lot more to say on this issue. I am not disputing that Jesus did "miraculous" things, like walk on water. But my point is, by definition He did not thereby violate the laws of nature or physics. Such talk is nonsensical.
Actually, in Christianity, there is a faction of scholars who prefer to “front-load” all of the biological design and miracles. I think this is done in order to keep God outside of time, subsequent to the big bang.
I have tons to say on this, but let me right now give a very succinct argument that I find irresistible. Maybe Wintery Knight or someone else can show me it's not so open-and-shut. But here goes:
(1) The "laws of physics" are regularities that humans think they have discovered; they are apparent patterns that exist in the observations of physical phenomena.
(2) If one really understands the character of physical law--as explained by the master, Richard Feynman--then nature can never violate the laws of physics. If scientists repeatedly observe a violation of, say, the conservation of energy, then the "law" wasn't really a law.
(3) Therefore it is impossible for God to "intervene" in nature and "perform a miracle," if "miracle" means "matter behaving not in accordance with the true laws of physics."
Like I said, I have a heck of a lot more to say on this issue. I am not disputing that Jesus did "miraculous" things, like walk on water. But my point is, by definition He did not thereby violate the laws of nature or physics. Such talk is nonsensical.
Comments:
In (2) you said "repeatedly." Does that mean God can be said to have performed a miracle if it's just a one-off event?
What difference does it make how we define the nature of Jesus' various deeds? Such a discussion is largely irrelevant to whether or not one should believe that they actually occurred. Jesus, indeed, need not be "above the law" to accomplish "miraculous" feats. I doubt many atheists care whether Jesus violated observed laws or was just endowed with Chuck Norris levels of power.
Well the "repeatedly" is to make sure it wasn't a mistaken observation. If one physicist one time reported that he saw violation of the conservation of energy in his lab, nobody would believe it.
The Blackadder Says:
Here's a simpler argument for the same conclusion. First, we define "a miracle" as "something that can't happen." Then we ask, are there any miracles? Obviously not.
Actually this is the same argument as you present here. It's just that you've increased the verbiage a bit by talking about the true laws of physics.
Needless to say, I don't find the argument very convincing.
Here's a simpler argument for the same conclusion. First, we define "a miracle" as "something that can't happen." Then we ask, are there any miracles? Obviously not.
Actually this is the same argument as you present here. It's just that you've increased the verbiage a bit by talking about the true laws of physics.
Needless to say, I don't find the argument very convincing.
# posted by 
: March 9, 2009 at 9:43 AM
: March 9, 2009 at 9:43 AM
God is the law-giver and Creator. If He wants to cause the rocks to cry out to His Glory, or have Peter walk on the water, or Transfigure Himself into clothes as bright as lightning, He will do so.
He doesn't first need man's permission of understanding to do so. :-)
He doesn't first need man's permission of understanding to do so. :-)
# posted by : March 9, 2009 at 10:42 AM
: March 9, 2009 at 10:42 AM
It's an interesting way of looking at it. While the point you are making is merely a semantic one, the way we use language does affect the way we think of the world.
Should you define the laws of physics as the way nature always acts instead of the way nature normally acts?
If you include miracles within nature I think it does help me remember that this is God's world, and that the laws of nature are acts of God's will as much as miracles are. However, if you say miracles are within the laws of nature it does seem to make them less amazing.
Should you define the laws of physics as the way nature always acts instead of the way nature normally acts?
If you include miracles within nature I think it does help me remember that this is God's world, and that the laws of nature are acts of God's will as much as miracles are. However, if you say miracles are within the laws of nature it does seem to make them less amazing.
In basketball, you can't walk with the ball without dribbling--unless the refs have blown the whistle.
Maybe, on the occasions of miracles, God simply blows the whistle and allows Moses to part the Red Sea, Samson to kick the shit out of the Philistines, Jesus to walk on water, and (someday) the Detroit Lions to win a Superbowl?
Maybe, on the occasions of miracles, God simply blows the whistle and allows Moses to part the Red Sea, Samson to kick the shit out of the Philistines, Jesus to walk on water, and (someday) the Detroit Lions to win a Superbowl?
Bob, if you define "miracles" as "matter behaving not in accordance with the true laws of physics" and assert that Jesus and other miracle workers always complied with the laws of physics, then you are in effect concluding that Jesus and others had no God-like powers.
Who was it that said that to those who are not accustomed to it, any advanced technology seems like magic?
Who was it that said that to those who are not accustomed to it, any advanced technology seems like magic?
The "argument" you just formed is more semantics that anything else. "Let's debate what constitutes a 'physical law' by arbitrary definition."
I'll accept your first premise that "physical laws" (as we define them) are just an empirical phenomenon. Let's say that these laws reflect God's "rules of the the game" for the physical world.
Let's think about that for a second. God created the game, and is a metaphysical being outside the construct of the game. Of course he can change rules, hence the laws of physics, to perform miracles, etc. If you are so callus as to define physical laws as "things that can't happen in the physical world," then - simply put - no physical laws exist because God could simply intervene at any time. A more careful definition of physical laws would be to define the parameters of the physical world (what can / can't happen, etc) assuming no external intervention. Assume then that God only intervenes with physical laws when absolutely necessary to preserve the notion that physical laws are absolute and you have something.
This reminds me of the atheistic argument that an Omnipotent God can't exist because (in the spirit of the Simpsons) Jesus can't make a Burrito so hot that he can't eat it. Is it really true that one cannot be all powerful because they cannot create logical absurdities? Of course not. The same rationale applies to your argument. The reason what many of the acts Jesus performed are considered miraculous is that they could not have been of this world. THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT!
If I'm incorrect about this notion, please explain any and all of the following conserving physical law:
Matthew 17:20
John 2:1-11
Matthew 14:25-32
Post a Comment
I'll accept your first premise that "physical laws" (as we define them) are just an empirical phenomenon. Let's say that these laws reflect God's "rules of the the game" for the physical world.
Let's think about that for a second. God created the game, and is a metaphysical being outside the construct of the game. Of course he can change rules, hence the laws of physics, to perform miracles, etc. If you are so callus as to define physical laws as "things that can't happen in the physical world," then - simply put - no physical laws exist because God could simply intervene at any time. A more careful definition of physical laws would be to define the parameters of the physical world (what can / can't happen, etc) assuming no external intervention. Assume then that God only intervenes with physical laws when absolutely necessary to preserve the notion that physical laws are absolute and you have something.
This reminds me of the atheistic argument that an Omnipotent God can't exist because (in the spirit of the Simpsons) Jesus can't make a Burrito so hot that he can't eat it. Is it really true that one cannot be all powerful because they cannot create logical absurdities? Of course not. The same rationale applies to your argument. The reason what many of the acts Jesus performed are considered miraculous is that they could not have been of this world. THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT!
If I'm incorrect about this notion, please explain any and all of the following conserving physical law:
Matthew 17:20
John 2:1-11
Matthew 14:25-32
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]