Is it reasonable to believe in miracles? To many people, it seems no.
So, let us consider some common objections against believing in miracles, and then offer a response.
Let’s consider two of the main objections to belief in miracles.
One objection argues that miracles are impossible.
People might argue for such a claim on different grounds, but one argument goes
like this. Miracles are by definition a violation of the laws of nature. But the laws of nature are
inviolable. Laws of nature are exceptionless norms governing the ways things act. Now, the world and
everything in it is governed by just these sorts of laws, and therefore miracles are impossible.
A second objection to belief in miracles argues that even if miracles are possible it is
unreasonable to believe one has ever occurred. Why? A miracle is by definition an improbable
event. Now, if that is so, then it is always more probable that any alleged miracle did not occur
than that it did occur. Since we should always proportion our beliefs to the probabilities,
it is always wrong to believe any alleged miracle has actually occurred.
What shall we say in response? St. Thomas Aquinas says “those things must properly be called
miraculous which are done by divine power apart from the order generally followed in things.”
This definition is quite broad, and leaves room for many different kinds and modes of miracles.
But with this definition in mind, it is possible to give an account of reasoned belief in miracles.
Let us begin with experience. The whole experience of human beings
past and present abounds with amazing phenomena,
and some of those phenomena lend themselves as candidates for being miracles. For example,
innumerable people testify to experiencing amazing healings after praying to God in the
name Jesus Christ or after praying to the Blessed Virgin Mary or Saints for their intercession.
Many people experience such healings, and provide first hand testimony to them. And it is not only
people in the past, but today – in our times, in our parishes, and in our neighborhoods. It is
likely that many people watching this video will have had such experiences and testimonies to give.
And what is more, given modern travel, anyone can visit places where such things happen
with some frequency. For example, anyone can travel to the Oratory of St. Joseph in Canada,
Shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes in France, Our Lady of Czestochowa in Poland,
or the Monastery of St. Charbel in Lebanon to name just a few. Amazing healings happen at each
of these places with some frequency. There are numerous first-hand testimonies to such healings,
and any visitor can see the crutches and braces left behind by those who have been healed.
But there is more than just experience or amazing phenomena to consider. In some of these places,
such as Lourdes, many thousands of people have reported experiencing healings.
Most of them are not investigated at all. But the experience is common enough
that a committee has been established to investigate some of them.
The International Medical Committee of Lourdes currently has about thirty medical experts on it,
and extensively researches those healings that are submitted to the committee. To date, there
have been seventy cases in which the Committee has declared a healing to have no natural explanation
given the best science available to us. In this way, expert scientific understanding works
together with human experience to evaluate the credibility of a miracle claim. But there is more.
In the Catholic Church, there is also something called the process of canonization. There are
some people who in the course of their lifetime acquire a reputation for great holiness. When
they die other people often pray to them to intercede with God for some special favor such
as a healing. With some frequency, such prayers are answered and some amazing healings happen.
And sometimes those amazing happenings are submitted to the Church for review.
When a person’s cause for canonization has been opened, alleged healings or miracles
in answer to prayers are submitted to the Congregation of the Causes for the Saints
for a review and investigation. The event is studied by a committee of historians, theologians,
and medical experts. In many cases, the committee finds that the facts are well-established,
there is no natural explanation available on the best science available to us, and the event
matches various theological criteria as well. The findings of the committee are then forwarded to
the Pope who makes a judgment about whether the cause for canonization should proceed. In modern
times, ordinarily two such events are required in order for someone to be canonized a Saint by
the Catholic Church. Now, in the last fifty years there have been over five hundred canonizations,
and so many hundreds of events submitted, investigated, and declared to be lacking
in natural, scientific explanation. And those are only the ones that made it through the process.
Experts tell us that many more amazing phenomena are submitted to the Congregation, and rejected,
simply due to lack of proper documentation.
What all of this shows is that human experience abounds with good evidence
for the reality of miracles in our times. It also shows how it is possible for
us to have a reasoned belief in miracles rather than one based merely on imagination,
enthusiasm, or ignorance of nature. In practice, faith, science, and experience can work together
in pondering the miraculous. Let us now return to the objections.
Are miracles by definition violations of the Laws of Nature? No. St. Thomas Aquinas does not define
miracles that way. He does not think in terms of laws of nature, and definitely does not think
in terms of exceptionless laws of nature. In this way, he is in the same school of thought as the
many modern scientists and philosophers of science who find talk of laws of nature to be problematic,
and who object to the understanding of laws of nature as exceptionless norms. They are better
construed as having hidden clauses qualifying them as true “all other things being equal,”
and in the case of miracles other things simply are not equal. God is at work in a special way.
But there is more. For St. Thomas, nature is not a closed system of principles or equations. Rather,
God is the primary cause of all things in nature, and things in nature are secondary causes always
operating under God’s influence and direction. God orders causes to act in ordinary ways,
and the ordinary ways of nature reveal the presence, wisdom, and power of God in one way.
But God also orders certain particular things in nature to act in extraordinary ways sometimes,
and his wondrous deeds also reveal his presence, wisdom, and power in another way. But whether God
produces something ordinary or extraordinary, God is over all and through all and in all.
Now what about the argument that it is unreasonable to believe in miracles because it is
always more probable that they did not occur than that they did? The argument has many problems,
and many have replied to it. But the simplest way to start seeing the many problems in it is this:
One and the same event or claim can be probable and improbable at the same time, but in different
respects. Winning the lottery, for example, is improbable on the numbers alone, but very probable
if someone holds in his hand a legitimate ticket matching the numbers after they are drawn.
Although the former kind of improbability is cause for surprise to the guy holding the winning
ticket, the same guy who holds the winning ticket would be a fool to refuse the payments on the
grounds that it is antecedently improbable that he won. Specific evidence commonly
overrides the antecedent probabilities, and that is why it is reasonable for scientists
to accept observations of anomalies. An anomaly is improbable with respect to a given theory,
but probable with respect to observation. So are miracles probable or not?
With respect to natural causes alone, they are improbable or even impossible. But with respect
to God, miracles in general are probable given his intentions to work them. Those intentions are made
known through time and experience of particular events. And with respect to a particular event,
alleged to be a miracle, the probability is determined through a reasonable consideration
of specific evidence as to the occurrence of the event, scientific evaluation of the explanation
of the event, and theological reflection on the significance of all the findings.
Like other matters, an open mind follows the whole body of evidence wherever it may lead.
For readings, podcasts, and more videos like this, go to Aquinas101.com.
While you're there, be sure to sign up for one of our free video courses on Aquinas.
And don't forget to like and share with your friends, because it matters what you think!