Miracles, Pt. 2

Chapter 2 of Miracles is concerned with the distinction between Naturalism and Supernaturalism. A naturalist sees everything as "part of the whole", that nothing exists beyond what can be called "natural". Everything that is, is "going on of its own accord" (p. 11).

The definitions are further established, but it is to understand that for the naturalist, there is but one nature, in which all things can be understood. And for the supernaturalist, there is some thing or "One Thing" in which all things find their meaning, their direction, their purpose and their creation. There is, for the supernaturalist, some thing that exists in and of itself; it exists because it exists, and all things find the reason for their own existence in the One Thing.

This can be understood as Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, the uncreated creator, the necessary, the Alpha and Omega, the God of the Universe.

Believing that in nature there is no reason for existence at all, and that nature cannot explain itself (is not self-existent), there must be a necessary being that causes all things. That nature exists, or that any law or condition in nature exists cannot account for necessity, only contingency, and a limited one without first causal properties.

If naturalism is all there is, then miracles are necessarily impossible. But that supernaturalism is possible is still no proof of the probability or certainty of miracles. God may very well never interfere or miraculously intervene.

"Our first choice, therefore, must be between Naturalism and Supernaturalism" (p. 16).

Miracles, Pt. 1

Where else would I start on my question about miracles but C.S. Lewis' Miracles?

Miracles always seemed to me like the kind of thing Christians would abandon quite readily in the face of any real questioning for fear of sounding dogmatic, inept or plagued by lunacy. Take the exchange in Bill Maher's Religulous, where the blundering store-owner who claims miracles have changed his life (but is apparently unable to think of any) is dismissed right out with Maher's laughing retort that miracles are only miracles if you call them that, otherwise they are coincidences or happy predictions or less.

The problem lies in being able to say something miraculous happened without being the hapless strawman the naturalist wants you to be so that he might draw his sword and valiantly and condescendingly lay waste to your foolish conclusions.

What C.S. Lewis does is to start from scratch. First and foremost, "The question whether miracles occur can never be answered simply by experience... Our senses are not infallible. If anything extraordinary seems to have happened, we can always say that we have been the victims of an illusion. If we hold a philosophy which excludes the supernatural, this is what we always shall say. What we learn from experience depends on the kind of philosophy we bring to experience" (p. 7, emphasis mine).

Kant began his Critique of Pure Reason noting that while all knowledge begins with experience, it does not therefore necessarily arise from it. It is possible, and indeed a necessary condition that certain knowledge comes before certain experience. One need not see a specific object fall to know that all unsupported objects fall. The general rule is learned perhaps by experience, but the truth of a specific instance can be known a priori, necessarily. It is to say, then, that where the empiricist would deny miracles on the grounds of experience only, there is a fundamental ignorance of the nature of knowledge. For this reason, Lewis dismisses the dismissal of the possibility of miracles in terms of experience alone. A proper philosophy must first be constructed to deal with the problem squarely.

Furthermore, one cannot begin with history, says Lewis, "For if [miracles] are impossible, then no amount of historical evidence will convince us... history can never convince us that a miracle occurred" (p. 8). Again, to write miracles off as impossible beforehand makes any other proof or likelihood categorically impossible.

Reading Biblical accounts of miracles is insufficient outside of the philosophical or logical possibility of miracles. So then, "It is no use going to the texts until we have some idea about the possibility or probability of the miraculous. Those who assume that miracles cannot happen are merely wasting their time by looking into the texts; we know in advance what results they will find for they have begun by begging the question" (p. 9).

In the Name of Progression

There was a moment, when tears mounted cautiously behind eyelids and signs and t-shirts proclaiming His eminence waived though the air, when I realized something else was happening besides just the vociferous announcement of the coming One. That the subject of the unadulterated and unmitigated fervor was anything less than immortal made the scene unsettling. That this was in support of a man--any man--resonated deeply within me that the ground on which they were treading was shaky at best and entirely destructive at worst.

Activity in the political process was escorted out as far too timid a stance when these followers decided the better response was unrestricted allegiance. This was not brought about by patriotic possibilities or any sense of political ideology, but by a character. What is typically shouted down as dangerous--the dogmatic adherence to ideology--became the beacon of hope and the wellspring of life as soon as the ideology took the form of an ideologue.

That was 2 months ago. But last night the world watched as the tears bound audaciously over eyelids with a disheartening lack of trepidation. The emotion of the faithful took hostage the reason of the individual, leaving a tearful horde in its wake. Whatever part of me understands the emotion of overturning a racial barrier in this country is still subject to the knowledge of what has really happened.

To those who feel a sense of vindication, however slight, that they accomplished what their ancestors could not, I celebrate with you. Humans have within them the desire to take control of their lot; to prevail over the oppression of their people. But to exercise ones intrinsic and inalienable yearning on the platitudes and campaign promises of a man to whom you will henceforth have no connection with or control over is to watch ones dreams set sail for edge of the world. I feel a tremendous amount of pity for the poor, the defeated, the destitute and the disillusioned who, in their moment of desperation, have cast the hopes and fears of a dying world onto a man who has promised everything. The history books record this trend as often as any theme written or imagined; to the hurting and innocent, my compassion; to the ignorant and complicit, my disdain.

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. - C.S. Lewis