Jack Snowdon: Lewis On Miracles

Throughout my life I have moved quite a bit, and with that have lived in a variety of different religious landscapes. Living in Southern Virginia, the area is solidly grounded in traditional American Protestantism, and, at least from my experience, is fairly homogeneous in that regard. I also lived in San Diego, where I saw the greatest religious diversity I ever have. The area where I lived was just south of Mira Mesa, affectionately referred to as Manila Mesa for the high Filipino population, and in turn a large concentration of Catholics, and at my high school there would be these crucifix wearing Catholics, as well as groups of girls in hijabs, and there were student groups for Orthodox and Protestant student activities, and if I recall correctly the Hebrew club met on Thursday afternoons after school. I'm afraid I cannot give much of a picture regarding Florida's demographics, as even though I am sure this is coincidental and not a consequence of the location, nearly all of the great friends I made there were atheists.

I was there for the end of my middle school career and the first two years of high school, and since then some of them have softened their stances to identify as agnostics or even non-practicing members of their family's traditional religions. I, too, have studied a great deal about religion since that time, learning much from the Baha'i faith, among others. But in those days of our immaturity, when religion was simply a matter of whatever title we applied to ourselves, despite not knowing so very much of what we were sure that we knew, they were unwavering atheists, and I was a locked-in Catholic. Another consequence of our immaturity was that the focal point of our debates (to use a scholarly term, even though "arguments" was likely more accurate back then) on the topic was the issue of miracles. (And yet another piece of evidence for my immaturity was that I took it upon myself to have these debates at all.)

The Baha'i stance on the issue: "...for the [prophets] these miracles and wonderful signs have no importance. They do not even wish to mention them. For if we consider miracles a great proof, they are still only proofs and arguments for those who are present when they are performed, and not for those who are absent." sat well with me as soon as I read it, as it is not to say that miracles could not have happened, but rather, they should not be the reason for our faith, nor should we labor too greatly to argue their veracity when we ourselves were not there to see it (and even if we were many would still have their doubts). With this revelation I realized it was silly of me to argue the case with my atheist friends, since neither of us were really arguing anything at all, it was not as if there was a case and counter-case that we could compare and contrast for. 

I read a very interesting excerpt about the topic from Lewis' God in the Dock as well. In it, Lewis is recalling an exchange between himself and one of his atheistic colleagues at Oxford. His colleague, a subscriber of new-age thought, declares that science has declared God impossible, which prompts Lewis to ask which science, a question which the man cannot provide a satisfactory answer, but that is no the focal point for this blog. The colleague also declares that miracles could not be possible, since they violate the natural laws of science. Lewis then goes on to use the example of placing eight coins in a drawer before going to sleep for the night. The natural law would dictate that the next morning the coins are still there, but they are not. They have been nabbed by a thief in the night. This, Lewis says, is not in violation of the laws of nature, only the laws of England. Lewis explains that natural law declares what will happen if there is no outside interference. Miracles depend upon outside interference, for it is the very thing that makes them miraculous. Lewis says that people have always known that miracles seem to be defying natural law, this is why Joseph wanted to divorce Mary when he learned she was pregnant, as according to the natural law people do not randomly become pregnant. It was only when he came to learn that it had been miraculous, unnatural by its very definition, that he came around once more.

This is a very interesting explanation of the phenomenon, and in my eyes, further explains why we should not bother to declare a miracle has happened to those who would argue science against it, as it is no more a question of scientific law being violated than in the case of thievery. By its essence and definition, a miracle declares something unnatural has taken place.