Science and Religion Today also recently posted about a book about miracle cures. It brings up some very interesting points about the sociology of miracle cures. In short, miracle cures were not necessarily created by a violation of nature, but rather due to very natural experiences. Does that make them any less miraculous?
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Miracles
Miracles can be a very controversial thing. Sometimes they are viewed as violations of the laws of nature. Sometimes they are viewed as things of awe. I think both can be true, but I tend to take a more Incarnational perspective that is more congruent with the latter: Where the actions can be explained scientifically, but are still quite amazing. Why can't God work through that? I think he does, as does a BioLogos writer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
i suppose it's a question of semantics then...
ReplyDeleteI think of a miracle as something only God can do. I'm not sure i'd define it as a "violation" of natural law but something that happens above or beyond natural laws. Sure people love to use the word miraculous like they use the word love, ie: "i love your hair cut" to "i love my wife"...clearly not the same just like "He now has so many friends it's a miracle!" to "He made water turn into wine, it's a miracle!" Yes there are amazing things that people can do like make pills that can cure stuff, but miracles only come from God. This is where I stand on the definition...But I'm not against helping be someone else's answer to a prayer so they believe that God gave a miracle-just to clear the air.
I would actually have to disagree there, Mark. I don't think miracles are only what God can do in a pure sense (so perhaps it is semantics). I think there are millions of miracles daily that could be explained naturally. However, they are God-ordained.
ReplyDeleteOne of the problems with saying miracles are only what God can do is that as our scientific understandings improve, we explain more and more away and God's role gets smaller and smaller...