Disillusionment in Modern Belief

In today’s world, philosophers and sociologists observe a prevailing disillusionment, reminiscent of the enlightenment period in 17th and 18th century Europe. Many individuals now seem to think that the universe operates solely on impersonal physical laws, leaving behind notions of the sacred and transcendent as relics from another time.

Take Richard Dawkins, for instance. He states that the 19th century marks the last era where an educated individual might have felt embarrassed admitting belief in miracles, such as the virgin birth.

This perspective isn’t exclusive to skeptics; some voice similar sentiments within Christianity itself. Rudolf Bultmann, a noted theologian, pointed out that, in light of our current naturalistic worldview, it’s hardly surprising that miracles are hard for many to accept.

However, there’s a compelling reason to foster skepticism while remaining open to the belief that miracles can, and perhaps do, occur. The foundation of Christianity itself is intertwined with miracles, particularly the incarnation and resurrection. If one dismisses miracles entirely, the essence of Christianity could be undermined (1 Corinthians 15:13–14).

What Constitutes a Miracle?

To engage in a discussion about the possibility of miracles, we first need to define what we mean by “miracle.” Christian philosopher Robert Larmer’s definition may be helpful: a miracle is “an abnormal and religiously significant event that reveals and advances God’s purpose, occurring beyond the physical capacities within the circumstances in which it happens, and initiated by agents that transcend physical properties.”

There are a couple of key points in this definition worth noting. For one, miracles aren’t simply random events in nature; they involve transcendental agents, such as God or angels, who bring them about. Some biblical references clearly identify angelic beings as miracle workers (Matthew 28:2-4; Luke 1:19-20; Acts 5:19-20). It’s also worth mentioning that even Satan is said to produce supernatural phenomena (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10), but such occurrences wouldn’t be categorized as miracles under this definition.

Secondly, miracles, while extraordinary, should also carry “religious significance,” meaning they are rationally perceived as advancing God’s purpose. Jesus’ resurrection, for example, served as evidence of his divine authority (John 2:19-22; Acts 17:31). Yet, it isn’t always immediately clear how certain extraordinary events relate to divine purpose. Time may be needed to discern whether something truly qualifies as a divine miracle.

Are Miracles Possible?

This brings us to the crux of the matter: the question of whether miracles can occur, depending on our definition. If we adopt a strictly naturalistic worldview, the likelihood of miracles seems quite low. The universe appears to abide by physical laws, with rare exceptions that underlie current scientific understanding.

Conversely, if we accept the existence of God, it’s reasonable to think He can intervene in His creation, acting in ways that involve miracles. Opponents of miracles must, therefore, argue against the very existence of God.

The assumptions we carry about the world shape how we view miracles. If our beliefs exclude the intervention of transcendental agents, we naturally reject the possibility of miracles. But acknowledging, or at least considering, the existence of God opens the door to accepting that miracles could indeed happen.

Now, embracing the idea of miracles can lead to concerns—what if it makes the universe feel chaotic and unpredictable? Wouldn’t that undermine scientific inquiries? Yet, philosopher Richard Purtill reminds us that while exceptions exist within general rules, they don’t invalidate our expectations. For instance, some children may skip grades in school without causing widespread disruption. Similarly, unusual holidays don’t undermine our work patterns, and sporadic pardons from governors don’t collapse the judicial system.

Likewise, miracles can coexist alongside our understanding of nature. Purtill argues further that scientists generally disregard miracles—they can’t predict them, make conclusions about natural processes based on them, or derive expectations from such events as they exist outside of scientific inquiry.

CS Lewis took this point further, contending that God Himself guarantees the consistency of nature. This perspective proposes that the rise of modern science is a direct result of a Christian worldview. In his book “Miracles,” Lewis wrote:

Theology effectively “also admits some miraculous risks with God, and in return, I will affirm your belief in uniformity for the vast majority of events.” … If you insist too much, you won’t get anything… Theology allows scientists to conduct experiments freely, while Christians can continue to pray.

In contrast to Dawkins’ views, Christians ought to feel secure in affirming the biblical account of miracles. Given that proving God’s existence is complex, skeptics lack grounds to outright deny that miracles can’t happen.

This naturally leads to other pertinent questions: Is there evidence to suggest a miracle has taken place? Many Christian scholars have made compelling arguments concerning the historical authenticity of Jesus’ resurrection. Interested readers could delve into works by William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, and Michael Licona. With a wealth of documented modern miracles alongside biblical defense, resources like “Miracle: The Reliability of the New Testament Explanation” and “Today’s Miracle: The Supernatural Work of God in the Modern World” provide significant insights.