Since religious belief in general, and Christianity in particular, relies heavily on the miraculous, it seems that Christianity would be best served if one could prove that miracles have occurred in the past. While Christian believers argue that miracles certainly have occurred, nonbelievers often appeal to science as the ultimate authority, claiming thatmiraclesnotonlyneverhappen but are scientifically impossible. Even so, that, nevertheless, is not the entire truth of the matter. A better question, perhaps, is this: “Is science even equipped to determine if miracles are true or not?” And if they are not so equipped, does that mean that their claim that miracles do not occur is based upon nothing more than personal preference?
As Norman Geisler notes in his book Christian Apologetics, properly stated, the nonbeliever presents an argument against miracles that runs like this: 1. Science as science must assume that all events are naturally explainable.
2. But if all events are scientifically explainable, then no events are supernatural or miraculous.
3. Therefore, science as science eliminates the supernatural.
It should go without saying that premise 1 is categorically true since science so chooses to limit its scope by defining itself in that fashion. Sure enough, a thoroughgoing definition of science states that there are no events that lie outside of the natural realm and therefore outside the reaches of science. In short, science only recognizes the physical universe made up of physical objects. But defining science that way does not make it true. It is, in fact, a self-imposed limitation of the scope of science rather than a virtue.
Obviously,examplesofeventsoccurring outside the physical realm, and therefore outside of scientific explanation,abound.Themostobvious, perhaps, is the question of how the universe came into being in the first place. While science presents the Big Bang theory to answer how the universe came to be, it fails to identify the cause. More specifically, Big Bang cosmology fails to offer a coherent account for any initial Causal Agent responsible for initiating the Big Bang. For this reason, it can be said that science, as science, has thus far failed to provide a scientific explanation for how the world, exactly, came into being. Nor can science explain what or who caused it.
Neither can science explain what causes near-death experiences (although some thin theories have been offered), much less the heavenly things that are repeatedly encountered by those having just such experiences. And even though science cannot explain this phenomenon, it is also quite interesting that even nonbelievers and ardent atheists make up part of the 25 million people from around the world who have reported such encounters. Documented cases of extraordinary physical healings are yet another area rich in phenomena inexplicable by science.
The problem, of course, is deeper than that: the problem of singularity. Science involves the observation of specific events occurring in nature to gain a deeper understanding of the event and its potential cause. For example, the observation of rapidly released, measurable tectonic pressure between rock formations is the cause of earthquakes, exemplifying the application of science in action. Indeed, science ultimately deals with the realm of cause and effect, determined solely by the observation and analysis of empirical data. However, as Geisler notes, science is inept to analyze a singularly unique event (such as a miracle). And since science cannot deal with singularities, it cannot pass judgment that the Big Bang happened at the beginning of our universe. After all, no one was around to observe and analyze the evidence. Truly, the best science can do concerning these phenomena is to remain silent. So, the assumption of premise 1 is in fact a false assumption.
Likewise, premise 2 of the argument fares little better because it is easily countered by Christians, who argue that not all events are scientifically explicable. Since there are some events that fall outside the bounds of science, it is entirely possible that miraculous events have occurred in history. Therefore, the conclusion that “science as science eliminates the supernatural” is a false claim.
What all of this means is, no, science has not proven miracles to be false. Most notably, not because science is flawed, but because the supernatural is outside of the scope of scientific inquiry. In other words, one would not go to a veterinarian to have a tooth capped because tooth capping is outside the scope of veterinary practice. Even a mediocre veterinarian would know better! What this also means is that when scientists or anyone else statethat“sciencehasdisproventhe miraculous,” they are actually making a statement of personal belief, illegitimately cloaked in scientific garb. After all, if God does indeed exist, miracles are not only possible, they are expected.
Join us again next time as we look once again at an extraordinary near-death experience had by a nonbeliever and how it radically changed his life and his beliefs. Until then, in the solitude of your own private thoughts, what do you truly believe: Is God dead?
Gloria in excelsis Deo! Ty B. Kerley, DMin., is an ordained minister who teaches Christian apologetics, and relief preaches in Southern Oklahoma. Dr. Kerley and his wife Vicki are members of the Waurika church of Christ, and live in Ardmore. You can contact him at: dr.kerley@isGoddead.com.