This article is the first in a series of guest-written pieces. The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Things I Believe Project — The Editor.
The Meaning of the Word “Miracle”
Miracle claims are often made in the context of discussions about whether Christianity is true. For example, the claim that “God raised Jesus from the dead” is a miracle claim that is not only defended as a key Christian belief but is also commonly used in arguments for the belief that Jesus is the divine Son of God. To think critically about the claim that “God raised Jesus from the dead,” one must learn to think critically about miracle claims.
One of the most important universal standards of thinking is clarity. When thinking clearly about miracle claims, it is essential to understand what the word “miracle” means. What are the logical implications of the statement: “Event X was a miracle”? If one cannot spell out the logical implications, one does not yet understand the meaning of the word “miracle” and, thus, is not yet thinking clearly about miracle claims.
In everyday conversation, the word “miracle” can loosely imply that an event was amazing or wonderful. However, in the context of investigating the religious question, “Did God raise Jesus from the dead?” the term “miracle” would mean something more. In this circumstance, to say that “Event X was a miracle” logically implies that God intentionally caused Event X to occur.
As understood by Christians, Jews, and Muslims, God is omniscient (i.e., all-knowing), so unlike humans with finite and fallible minds, God cannot be unaware of any consequence of his actions. On the other hand, when a human does something—such as performing an action—this action may result in consequences not anticipated by that person because human beings cannot correctly predict all outcomes of their actions. However, when God does something, God is aware of all the consequences of that action because God is all-knowing. Thus, God never causes an event unintentionally.
Are there other logical implications of the statement “Event X was a miracle”? The skeptical philosopher David Hume would say that the assertion implies that “Event X is contrary to the laws of nature.” A defender of Hume might argue that we can only know that God has caused an event to occur if the event in question contradicts the laws of nature. God, if God exists, is omnipotent (i.e., all-powerful), and only by causing an event contrary to the laws of nature can God enable us to detect that an all-powerful being was the cause of that event.
However, there are some significant problems with this reasoning. First, if God exists, God can cause any event that a human can cause. And if God chooses to cause an event that a less-than-omnipotent being can cause, then such an event would be difficult, if not impossible, for a human to identify as an event caused by God and not by a human. Nevertheless, if God caused an event that a human could cause, the event is still worthy of the label “miracle.”
Furthermore, a being doesn’t need to be omnipotent to cause an event contrary to the laws of nature. For example, some humans claim to have the power of levitation, but if a person could levitate themselves, that person would be causing something contrary to the laws of nature. However, having the power of levitation does not mean a being is omnipotent. The power of levitation is just one sort of supernatural power. God, if God exists, is all-powerful and not limited to merely having the power to levitate things.
Humans desire knowledge, so we expect that everything that exists is knowable or observable. However, desire does not dictate the nature of reality. In other words, reality might not conform to the natural human desire for everything to be knowable or observable. Thus, some events might be miracles even if we cannot come to know or observe them. The fact that humans cannot determine whether a specific event was a miracle (for example, because the event was not contrary to a law of nature) does not logically imply that the event in question was not a miracle. It may simply mean that humans might never be able to know that a specific event was a miracle.
Some Christian philosophers believe that the statement “Event X is a miracle” implies not only that “God intentionally caused the event to occur” but that “God caused X to reveal some theological truth about himself to humans.” This opinion, however, is mistaken. Although God, if God exists, might want to reveal some theological truths to human beings, a being solely interested in this goal would be a selfish and egotistical deity. However, if God exists, God is perfectly good, a being who is not uncaring or arrogant.
A perfectly good person, especially an all-knowing, perfectly good person, would have other goals and purposes besides just communicating theological truths to humans. For example, a perfectly good person would want to alleviate the suffering of human beings. So, a perfectly good person who was all-knowing and all-powerful might sometimes cause some delicious and nutritious food to appear out of thin air before some starving children so that those children would remain alive and enjoy at least a few hours without suffering the pain of starvation. Teaching these children some correct theology might not be the purpose of such an action by God. God might well perform a miracle just for the sake of alleviating the suffering of some children.
God, if God exists, not only can cause changes to occur in the natural or physical world but can also cause changes to occur in the supernatural world (if there is one). If God exists, God could destroy an angel or a demon. However, such an action would be invisible and undetectable by human beings. We cannot observe or detect the existence or presence of an angel through our physical senses or some physical instrument (i.e., a telescope, microscope, thermometer, scale, or microphone).
Similarly, there is no way for us to observe or detect the destruction of an angel by God. Since humans do not observe angels, demons, and other supernatural beings, God’s actions that impact these beings should not be considered miracles. Such “miracles” would be useless evidence for a Christian belief. When we discuss miracles as evidence, we should limit the scope of “miracles” to events in the physical universe that are detectable by means of ordinary human senses.
Here, then, is how I understand the meaning of the word “miracle:”[1]
X is a miracle if and only if:
- X is an event in the physical universe, and
- X is an event that can be detected by means of ordinary human senses, and
- God intentionally brought about X.
The word “miracle” does not imply any particular purpose or motivation of God. If God exists, God could perform a miracle to reveal some theological truth, but that is only one of countless possible purposes that God might have for causing a particular event to occur in the natural world.
One objection to the above definition of “miracle” is that it uses the word “God,” but the word “God” is itself unclear and ambiguous. Thus, the definition may seem flawed because it attempts to define one unclear and ambiguous word (“miracle”) by reference to another unclear and ambiguous word (“God”). This objection will be discussed in the following section.
The Meaning of the Word “God”
Although there are many different and conflicting beliefs about God, there is a significant degree of agreement between the three major Western religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) about the essential characteristics of God or the divine attributes. It is challenging to come up with a definition that everyone will accept. Still, philosophers and theologians from the three main Western religions would likely find the following definition acceptable:
X is God if and only if:
- X is an eternally disembodied person, and
- X is eternally omnipotent, and
- X is eternally omniscient, and
- X is eternally perfectly good, and
- X is the creator of the universe.
Given the general acceptability of the above definition of “God,” the purported ambiguity and lack of clarity of the word “God” should no longer be an issue. The use of the word “God” in the definition of “miracle” above should be interpreted in light of my clear and unambiguous definition of “God.”
There are additional alleged divine attributes that some Christians accept, and others reject (for example, immutability or changelessness and impassibility, the idea that God does not experience pain or pleasure resulting from the actions of other beings).
Most Christians believe that divine attributes are possessed eternally by God. These attributes represent stability in God’s nature that is similar to, but less comprehensive than, the characteristic of immutability. Immutability is the more extreme idea that God never changes in any way whatsoever. On the widely held view captured in the definition above, God was always, is now, and always will be omnipotent. So, if someone were omnipotent only for a day, year, or century, that person would not be God because God must be omnipotent for all eternity. The same is the case with most of the divine attributes.
One prominent exception to this rule is being the creator of the universe. Assuming that the universe has not existed for all eternity, God cannot have been the creator of the universe for all eternity. God can only be the creator of the universe once the universe comes into existence. Thus, being “the creator of the universe” is a characteristic that God, if God exists, has possessed for only a finite period (probably about 14 billion years).
The above definition of “God” simplifies the following analysis of the claim “God exists” by the Christian philosopher Richard Swinburne:
…there exists eternally an omnipresent spirit, who is perfectly free, the creator of the universe, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and a source of moral obligation…[2]
The use of omnipresence in Swinburne’s analysis is redundant because this characteristic is logically implied by God being both omnipotent and omniscient. The stipulation of being perfectly free is also redundant since that is logically implied by the characteristic “perfectly good.”
The requirement of God being eternal is unclear in Swinburne’s analysis because although most divine attributes are assumed to be eternally possessed by God, at least one (i.e., being the creator of the universe) is not eternally possessed by God. That is why, in the definition of “God” above, I apply the qualification “eternal” to most of the divine attributes but not to the attribute of being the creator of the universe.
Swinburne’s view of God’s role with respect to morality is weak; he believes that only some moral obligations come from God. Many Christians would make the much stronger claim that all moral obligations are grounded in the existence of God. Some philosophers hold the view that no moral obligations are grounded in the existence of God. It is question-begging to assume a specific philosophical view about God’s relationship to morality in the definition of “God.” That is why I eliminated the requirement that God be “a source of moral obligation.” The philosophical question about God’s role concerning morality can and should be discussed and argued independently of how we define “God.”
Part 2 of this essay will reveal another important ingredient to thinking critically about miracle claims: healthy skepticism. There are good reasons to be skeptical about miracle claims, so although a critical thinker should be open-minded about the existence of God and the occurrence of miracles, it is also important for a critical thinker to approach miracle claims with healthy skepticism.
About the Author
Bradley Bowen was a devout Evangelical Christian from 1970 to 1982. The study of philosophy, especially philosophy of religion, led him to believe that his Christian faith was founded on weak and faulty arguments. Mr. Bowen left Christianity in favor of skepticism, critical thinking, and a secular humanist worldview. He earned degrees in philosophy from three universities: B. A. in philosophy from Sonoma State University in 1984, M. A. in philosophy from the University of Windsor in 1987, and Candidate for PhD in philosophy from the University of California at Santa Barbara in 1991. [back to top]
Footnotes
[1] For a more detailed justification of this definition, see my series of blog posts on the meaning of the word “miracle” at The Secular Frontier: https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2024/12/the-meaning-of-the-word-miracle-index/
[2] Richard Swinburne, The Coherence of Theism, Revised Edition (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993), 4.