Egypt’s New Proposal To Fight And Cure… Atheism »« The Loyal Opposition

There’s Miracles, And Then There’s Miracles

The stories in our narratives
Grow stranger in re-telling—
Man, you should have seen the fish that got away!
And a parent’s tale of family lore
Can often be compelling—
You’d have seen it, if you hadn’t slept that day!
They promote a faith in fantasy
They should, perhaps, be quelling
So they see their child’s thinking led astray
But it seems to serve a purpose:
It’s the Catholic faith they’re selling
So a miracle’s a miracle, ok?

It’s always fun reading Father Longenecker’s stuff from Rome–“Of Miracles and Atheists“:

Miracles and atheists don’t mix. They are oil and water.

A religious person and an atheist discussing miracles is like two people playing tennis on adjacent courts. This is because the religious believer and the atheist start with two very opposite basic assumptions. The atheist assumes that miracles can’t happen because well…miracles can’t happen. In other words, he believes that the natural order is closed. The laws are set. They can’t be altered. That’s that.

Well, close, Father. The fun part is in testing that assumption. What are the laws? How well do they explain our observations? They are descriptive, after all, and subject to change if we find better ones. If something we observe systematically and consistently violates those laws, we have to change the laws (think Newton and Einstein). The laws are not held by faith; they are not assumptions, but conclusions, and always provisional conclusions (even when we are very confident in them).

The atheist admits that there are strange phenomena–that there are unexplained events, but he would say if there is something that we can’t explain it’s because we haven’t learned how that part of nature works yet. He does not want to admit the existence of God because he thinks the Christian God is the “God of the Gaps”–the supernatural being people usher in when they can’t explain something.

The believer, on the other hand, thinks God does interact with the natural order and that he has a right to do so from time to time because he made the natural order and he can interrupt it if he likes. The ordinary believer thinks that God and angels interrupt the natural order to do good things like heal people, protect them from danger and provide for them in time of need–and sometimes they interrupt the natural order to do strange things that help people to believe in them like answers to prayer or stigmata or angels appearing to people or incorrupt bodies of saints.

Or take credit from surgeons. Or from antibiotics. Or engineers. Or saving one person but not another.

So, yeah, believers see miracles all the time. But Fr. Longenecker isn’t gullible:

I believe in miracles. However, I am critical of those believers who are too gullible and too ready to proclaim a miracle when there may be a perfectly natural explanation. In this attitude I am simply being a good Catholic.

This is the Catholic position: we believe in the supernatural and we believe in miracles. However, we also only proclaim a miracle as a last option. We look for every natural explanation first. We consider natural explanations, psychological explanations and natural psychic explanations. We expect there to be a natural explanation and only when there is not other way to explain what has happened to we open up the possibility of a miracle.

According to the official Catholic view, therefore, most “miracles” have a natural explanation. Many cases of healing, for example, which some claim to be miraculous are probably due to human suggestion, the power of the mind and faith and belief over matter, and the support and positive power of human love and friendship.

He goes on to list some possible natural explanations for stigmata. Skeptical guy, Fr. Longenecker. Just ask him. He is going to explore every possibility before giving up and concluding “it was a miracle, unexplainable in any other way”.

However, sometimes there are other occurrences which cannot be explained in any other way than a miracle. Here’s one: One night when I was a young child asleep in the back of the car my parents were on the way home from leading a youth group. They were traveling down a country lane only wide enough for one car. Steep banks rose up on either side. They crested a hill and saw another car speeding down the lane towards them. They knew as they went down into the next dip in the road the oncoming driver would not see them. There was nowhere to go to the right or the left and no room for the two cars to pass. My parents said later that in a split second what they feared was upon them. The other car was in front of them.

They braced for the head on collision. My mother said she could see the terrified face of the other driver. Then it was over. They looked out the back window of the car to see the tail lights of the other car receding into the distance. My parents were both very sane and spoke about this in a matter of fact way. The two cars went through each other, or time was suspended or one car (or both) de materialized.

Given the laws of nature, there is no other explanation than what we would call a miracle. Furthermore, my parents’ story is not the only story like this. I know of at least two other instances amongst my friends, and when you tell a story like this immediately half a dozen other people step forward and share similar experiences. Even allowing that some are deluded, that there were other explanations or that some were exaggerating, there are enough stories from enough reliable, sensible and sane people to conclude that something miraculous took place.

As described, the laws of physics were suspended–and that would truly be miraculous. But didn’t Fr. Longenecker specifically mention “psychological explanations”? There is no violation of physics needed for devout parents to see a miracle in a near-accident, and to embellish the story in the retelling. This is an incredibly low bar for a miracle, but it is Fr. Longenecker’s open-and-shut case for divine intervention.

It is true, atheists and Catholics (he says “believers”, but he paints with too broad a brush) have very different views of miracles. (Actually, I would argue that his beef is with naturalists rather than atheists, but no matter.) But here’s the thing: the Catholic church’s use of miracles as evidence in the process of canonizing saints means they are trying to play on our tennis court (to borrow Fr. Longenecker’s metaphor from earlier). And if they wish to play with evidence, they have an obligation to treat it properly. Skeptically. Critically. And they might want to look to the people who work with evidence for a living–scientists–to see how this particular game of tennis is played. Because you can have a lot of fun when you take the net down and ignore the foul lines, but when you do, you’re not actually playing tennis.

Comments

  1. says

    You can tell all you need about the canonization process from the fact that the guy who is supposed to check that facts is called advocatus diaboli

  2. AsqJames says

    [The atheist] does not want to admit the existence of God because he thinks the Christian God is the “God of the Gaps”–the supernatural being people usher in when they can’t explain something.

    This is the Catholic position: we believe in the supernatural and we believe in miracles. However, we also only proclaim a miracle as a last option. We look for every natural explanation first. We consider natural explanations, psychological explanations and natural psychic explanations. We expect there to be a natural explanation and only when there is not other way to explain what has happened to we open up the possibility of a miracle.

    So Fr. Longenecker, tell me again how the Catholic god differs from the “god of the gaps”.

  3. Kevin Kehres says

    So, a good Catholic family has a bona fide miracle of dematerialization, while 50,000 or so good citizens a year (probably 25% of which are Catholics, given the base rate) die in auto accidents? Because god apparently doesn’t give a fuck about those people.

    The only good miracle is a repeatable miracle. One that happens to the faithful but not to the non-faithful. If Catholics (or any other individual religion) suddenly start having miraculous escapes from auto accidents on a regular basis, then I’ll start paying attention. Or if Catholics suddenly stop needing treatment for Stage IV cancer because they’re cured by prayer, while everyone else dies.

    Last I checked, the number of documented “miracles” the CC declares from visitors to Lourdes is 12. Twelve out of 20 million or so visitors. And of those “miracles”, all were in medical situations where spontaneous remission is a rare-but-known phenomenon. No growing back amputated limbs — not one. Not one case of a missing eyeball growing back — ever!

    If every single visitor to Lourdes had a miracle occur, then I’d be impressed. Twelve out of 20 million? Geez, you have as much chance as being attacked by a lion and a great white shark on the same day in the middle of Manhattan. That is one apathetic god you got there.

  4. busterggi says

    So Father Longenecker, if you belive in miracles does that include Muslim, Hindu, Buddist, etc miracles also? Are there that many gods that you accept or is Jesus just jerking believers in other deities around?

  5. Linda Grilli Calhoun says

    This is precisely, exactly, how religion makes you stupid.

    Something happens that you can’t explain. You search for a natural explanation, but can’t find one. So, if you’re religious, you GIVE UP, and say goddidit.

    If you’re skeptical, you KEEP LOOKING. Maybe you find an answer, maybe you don’t, maybe you make progress toward an answer that someone beyond your lifetime uses to find an answer.

    Religion has never contributed one iota toward the body of knowledge. L

  6. johzek says

    Just because a believer can imagine a phenomenon like miracles does not require the atheist to make the assumption that such a phenomenon doesn’t exist. Our senses are automatic biological functions and they provide us with an awareness of what exists. No assumptions are necessary for this to happen. Of course human beings have the ability to imagine and if the thing being imagined can’t be demonstrated to exist in reality then the imaginer has no recourse but to assume the existence of this thing. So in effect this accusation that atheists have to make assumptions in this regard is entirely bogus and in truth only one side has to make assumptions and that is the side that needs to resort to their imaginations.

  7. Matt G says

    Here is where word order is so crucial. What the poor, benighted fellow wrote was: “The atheist assumes that miracles can’t happen…” when he should have written: “The atheist doesn’t assume that miracles can happen…”. He has improperly shifted the burden of proof.

  8. Matt G says

    People don’t believe in miracles because they see evidence for them – they see evidence for miracles because they believe in them.

  9. says

    Kevin @4:

    Geez, you have as much chance as being attacked by a lion and a great white shark on the same day in the middle of Manhattan

    Aw geez, don’t take this idea to Asylum pictures. We’ll have a new crop of D-list movies with Lions being hurled around in tornadoes rather than sharks…

  10. busterggi says

    Aw, Tony, cancha see it now? ‘Grem-lions, the Newest Batch’ – a rare monsoon occurs over the Central Park Zoo after a tresspasser has snuck food in to the lions after midnight…

  11. eamick says

    You can tell all you need about the canonization process from the fact that the guy who is supposed to check that facts is called advocatus diaboli

    John Paul II abolished the post in 1983. Unsurprisingly, the number of canonizations has risen sharply.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>