Question:
If miracles are to be considered divine singularities, is the
scientific method appropriate for evaluating the occurrence
of miracles? Does recognizing the occurrence of miracles
halt scientific progress since doing so would require
recognizing the miracle as a divine singularity instead of a
repeatable regularity, and also result in the scientist’s giving
up being a scientist by the traditional definition of the title?
Does the recognition of miracles beg-the-question or
require special pleading, if naturalistic means are not
employable to recognize them? Lastly, if miracles are to
have any apologetic value, what criteria external of Scripture
can be employed to evaluate them, if any?
Answer:
Great question! First, a technicality. I would prefer to call a
miracle a divine intervention. I am not sure about using
the word singularity, as it has a pretty specific meaning in
mathematics and physics. Is a miracle a “singularity”? I
am not sure how to answer that question. I call it an
intervention.
Is the scientific method appropriate for evaluating the
occurrence of miracles? That depends on what you mean
by evaluating. For example, some say that because of
science, with its natural laws, this proves that miracles
cannot happen. Of course, this statement is nonsense. All
science can do is tell us what is “natural” which would be
defined as an event which occurs which can be explained
by the laws of nature. Can a supernatural event occur?
Science is literally completely unable to answer this
question. The question of the supernatural (that which
violates the natural) is simply outside the range of
questions science can answer. An honest scientist will
declare themselves agnostic with regard to the existence of
supernatural events, at least as far as their scientific
knowledge goes.
Still, I believe that science CAN be used to evaluate the
occurrence of miracles. What I mean by this is that science
could be used to decide if a given event is “natural.” In
other words, let us say that event X happened. We could
use science to decide whether there is a conceivable
“natural” explanation of event X. If there is no reasonable
natural explanation of event X we can conclude that event
X is a miracle. By this criteria the resurrection of Jesus, if it
did in fact happen, would be a miracle. Jesus walking on
water would be a miracle. Jesus turning water to wine
would be a miracle. The parting of the Red Sea would
probably be a miracle, although some have proposed
possible natural explanations such as the blowing of a
unique and very powerful wind to explain the parting of the
water. Science would leave this in the probably a miracle
category.
If we conclude that miracles happen, does that impede
science? The answer to this is simple. Definitely not.
There is no conceivable reason that the existence of the
supernatural could make science ineffective. Here is the
simple fact. Scientists accept as a given that natural laws
exist and that these can be used to predict events in the
natural world. The fact is that this assumption works either
all the time (assuming no miracles) or virtually all the time
(assuming miracles). What I say to my students in my
philosophy of science classes is that the assumption of
natural laws works “for all practical purposes.” Science
works for all practical purposes and therefore the existence
of miracles or even the question of whether miracles
happen is irrelevant to science. I am a scientist. My belief
in the supernatural has literally absolutely no impact in my
work as a scientist. It does affect how I look at scientific
information in small but significant ways (for example, I
believe evolution is an a natural process, but I believe that
there may be interventions in that process), but it has
literally zero impact on my understanding of chemistry and
the laws governing the interactions of matter.
Does the existence of miracles require special pleading?
Absolutely not. It is the denial of miracles which requires
special pleading. The committed philosophical materialist
assumes that there is no supernatural. They then tend to
use this assumption to “prove” that there is no
supernatural. The believer in miracles does not need to
resort to such logical fallacies. The evidence for miracles is
the actual occurrence of miracles such as the resurrection
of Jesus. The evidence for miracles comes from history,
not from science. Like I already said, “naturalistic means”
cannot be used to rule out miracles but they can be used to
evaluate whether a particular event, if it occurred, would
require supernatural explanation.
Your last question is the hardest. What criteria external to
Scripture can we use to evaluate whether or not miracles
are real? I believe that the best approach to this question
is to look at specific examples. We ought to study all the
available information to establish what the most reasonable
interpretation of what actually happened is. Then we should
apply the “most reasonable explanation” criteria to establish
whether in fact a miracle happened. The best example of
how to apply this criteria that I know of is with regard to the
resurrection of Jesus. Let me supply a list of potential
“facts,” which I would define as something established by
history beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Jesus was in fact crucified by the Romans under
Pontius Pilate in Jerusalem.
2. The tomb where his body was laid was empty on the
third day from his death (despite attempts to prevent
it).
3. The resurrection of Jesus was claimed by the eye-
witnesses to this supposed resurrection by many of
people in Jerusalem almost immediately after the
supposed event occurred.
I will not discuss for now how I reach the conclusion that
these are “facts” beyond a reasonable doubt. Let me
reserve that discussion for another time. However, if we
can accept these as “facts” we could then seek for the
most reasonable explanation. In this analysis, we should
assume that any reasonable “natural” explanation of the
fact is vastly to be preferred to a miraculous explanation, as
the assumption that nearly all events which happen are
natural is obviously true.
With this analysis, I believe that the most reasonable
conclusion is that the resurrection did in fact happen and
that it was a miracle, by definition. I believe this because
all other explanations I have heard are absurd and not at all
reasonable. The explanation that the disciples stole the
body is absurd. The explanation that Jesus did not in fact
die is also absurd. My conclusion is that a reasonable
analysis of the historical evidence, and in consideration of
the scientific laws which apply, the most reasonable
explanation is that a miracle occurred. Is this “proof?” I
say no. I say it is the most reasonable conclusion unless
we take as a presupposition that miracles cannot happen.
Of course, in the present discussion such a presupposition
is not allowed, as we are asking whether miracles happen.
Therefore I believe that we have given reasonable evidence
to conclude that miracles are real. Most reasonable
conclusion? Yes. Proved? No.
If we have established that a single miracle has occurred,
then we have established that miracles can in fact happen
and that they have in fact (at least provisionally) happened.
This makes the standard of “proof” for other miracles
somewhat less difficult to meet. We can proceed from
there.
That is how I would approach your rather difficult last
question.
kingstech 
You must be logged in to post a comment.