I like the above image, because it’s so absurd. Not that the miracle itself is absurd, but that someone could see such a thing and still dismiss it.
A while back, we had a discussion on this blog about the effectiveness of miracles. Not the “oh, my aunt has a friend that knows someone who had back pain until it was prayed over and now it’s gone” variety, but amazing, in-your-face miracles that simply can’t be explained. Like seeing a man walk on the sea. Or seeing someone whose legs are atrophied because he was lame from birth suddenly begin running and jumping on legs that have been fully restored. Or seeing an ocean separate before you so that you could walk on dry land between two walls of water. In other words, the kinds of miracles talked about in the Bible.
What would it be like to witness something like that?
Before we tackle that question, let’s consider the actual purpose of miracles in more detail. Take, for example, the account of Peter and John healing the lame man in Acts 3. Here, Peter and John encounter a man at the gate of the temple who had been lame from birth. He asked for alms, but Peter replied that he had no silver or gold; instead, he commanded the lame man to walk in the name of Jesus. Of course, the lame man was then able to leap up and run around. This was a marvelous thing to do for a lame person — and obviously, one of the main reasons Peter and John healed him was because they had compassion on him.
But it’s also apparent that the miracle served another purpose:
And all the people saw him walking and praising God, and recognized him as the one who sat at the Beautiful Gate of the temple, asking for alms. And they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him.
While he clung to Peter and John, all the people, utterly astounded, ran together to them in the portico called Solomon’s. And when Peter saw it he addressed the people…
— vs 9-12
Peter suddenly had the attention of everyone who saw the miracle or recognized the lame man. And that’s no surprise. Just imagine how you’d feel if you had witnessed such a thing — if you had seen the atrophied legs grow and take shape. Wouldn’t you be inclined to listen to whatever Peter and John might have to say? You’d already be inclined to believe something fantastic, because there’s no natural explanation for what you would have witnessed with the lame man. And as we see in verse 4 of the next chapter, many of the witnesses believed what Peter and John said and became Christians.
The Bible is actually fairly consistent in its use of miracles. For instance, John 20:30-31 says this:
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
In Genesis 41, when Joseph has an opportunity to decipher the meaning behind Pharaoh’s dreams, he first recounts the dreams back to Pharaoh (something he couldn’t have known on his own) as a sign that God is speaking to him. Centuries later, when God tells Moses to go to Egypt and deliver the Children of Israel, God performs miracles so Moses will have faith in his power. During Moses’ discussions with Pharaoh and the subsequent Exodus, miracles are used many times to show people God’s will. Gideon was shown miracles so he would trust in God’s instructions. In the New Testament, Jesus performed many miracles to show people that he had been sent from God, and his apostles later followed suit. Thomas was allowed to touch the wounds in Jesus’ hands and side, since he was having trouble believing what he was seeing. Paul was given a miracle on his way to Damascus to show him that his persecution of Christians was wrong.
Throughout the Bible, miracles are used as evidence. They are used to convince people who were not convinced by other means.
So if that’s how God operated in the Bible, why don’t we see miracles today? Again, I’m not talking about the anecdotes you hear about someone’s back pain going away. I’m talking about real, immediate miracles that can be witnessed. There’s a book and website called Why Won’t God Heal Amputees? It’s a great question. Just imagine what a game-changer it would be if you turned on the major news networks one day and saw a person’s limb grow back through the power of prayer. And not just that person’s, but many others as well. How could such an event be explained away?
So why doesn’t God do that? If he performed miracles in the past so that people would believe, why doesn’t he do it now?
Some believers will say God doesn’t do those kinds of miracles today, because they don’t convince many people. To illustrate this, they point to the episodes in the gospels where Jesus performed a miracle, but it failed to convince the Pharisees and other religious leaders of the day. But really, how likely is this? If you were to witness an amputee’s leg grow back, would you really deny it? What would you have to gain by doing so? If someone demonstrated that kind of power, wouldn’t you want to know whatever message they had to give?
And if that were true about the Pharisees and chief priests, etc, why did Jesus bother doing the miracles? And why does the Gospel of John say that the miracles were performed so that people could believe? Obviously, the miracles must have been at least somewhat effective — and if God wants everyone to be saved, wouldn’t even one additional person’s belief be worth doing those kinds of miracles today?
In fact, if you really think about it, when the gospels repeatedly say that Jesus’ miracles failed to convince the religious leaders of the day, it probably says much more about the quality of the “miracles” being performed than it does the mindset of those who weren’t convinced.
When it comes down to it, most people are not obstinate enough to deny reality when it’s staring them in the face. Think of every movie you’ve ever seen where one character is trying to convince another of something fantastic. Let’s take Back to the Future as an example, since most people should be familiar with it. When Marty was trying to convince Doc Brown that he was from the future, Doc was very skeptical. Even when Marty tried to prove it by saying who was President in 1985, etc. Those were all details that could have been made up. But once Marty could explain how Doc Brown got the bump on his head, Doc realized Marty could not have known that through sheer intuition. And finally, the most logical explanation for everything was that Marty was telling the truth and had actually come from the future. But if Doc had held out and refused to believe even if Marty showed him the DeLorean and took him on a trip through time, the story would have lost its believability — and not because of the time travel premise.
In the same way, if it became a known fact that prayer could visibly heal people of egregious injuries, there would be no rational reason to dis-believe it. In other words, to answer our original question, miracles would be very convincing. And there doesn’t seem to be any good reason why God would refuse to use them. So the fact that they don’t happen is very good evidence to me that the Christian god is simply imaginary.
Finding Truth 
Additional info: The report maintained that not enough tests and brain scans were performed before the diagnosis.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/07/09/woman-thought-to-be-dead-awakens-just-before-doctors-harvest-organs/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz2YeCR1uoL
Which brings up another point, rather than someone being dead and miraculously brought back to life, forgetting the instruments, aren’t these phenomenons many times due to just plain human error ? The Biblical Lazerus was stinking from decay before he came back to life. Show me documentation for a death like this today and I would have to consider this a Miracle ! Even Nate might agree with this one ! 🙂
LikeLike
So we are agreed that this case doesn’t parallel the Crandall one?
Yes, I’m sure these phenomena are indeed “many times due to just plain human error “. But always? Every last one?? I have referenced dozens of cases that are very difficult to explain naturally.
The Dr Crandall case comes close. He is a very experienced and renowned heart surgeon, and he reported that “As I entered the ER [emergency room] it was like a war zone. Here was this lifeless body on a stretcher. His face, his arms, his legs were pitch black with death.”
So it wasn’t 4 days like Lazarus, just 45 minutes (in the emergency room, perhaps a little longer overall, I don’t know), but deterioration had indeed begun.
Maybe even the possibility of a miracle then? 🙂
LikeLike
Was reading through some comments, and say some other questions I didn’t address.
kcchief1-
You wrote a comment addressing God’s behavior in the OT, particularly his hardening of hearts, placing the tree in the Garden, etc. I believe I would be in line with most biblical scholars in saying that the story of the Garden of Eden is likely mythical to make a point about human nature and our broken relationship with God. I don’t take it as a literal account of actual history, and so I don’t want to try to defend it as it stands.
Additionally, I also read much of God’s “behavior” in the OT as personification in a way that humans at the time could have understood. I think it is offensive to our modern, North American, cultured minds. However, these kinds of descriptions of God would have made sense to ancient readers. God has chosen, it seems to me, to reveal himself to people where they are at. I don’t know why God has done this, and I don’t want to attempt to explain it. But, I think I’m at least safe in saying that the human attitudes, behaviors, and prejudices attributed to God are likely more for the purpose of communicating God in an understandable way than representing what God is actually “like”.
LikeLike
Hey Nan-
You wrote:
“…why God, in his omnipotence, did not create us “perfect” in the first place …”
I believe that God has chosen to cultivate true, two way relationships with his creation. Making us “perfect” to begin with would have negated this ability as we would have been compelled to “love” (if you can call it that) God by nature of our design. I can’t necessarily speak for God as to why he chose this option, but I can say that it makes sense to me that love and submission is something to be cherished as a choice, and cannot be cherished if it is compelled or forced.
“Beyond this comment, I tend to question, along with Nate, why God does not perform bonafide miracles in today’s world. That is, miracles that would be hard to dismiss by even the staunchest of skeptics. Did God go on strike?”
I think I’ll refer you to unkleE’s comment a few posts back. He linked an article he wrote called ‘Does God use miracles to prove himself? Should he?’ I think this is a really good summary that addresses this question.
LikeLike
Josh, how do you suppose people at that time came to have such a primitive (to our way of thinking) conception of God?
LikeLike
@unkleE “So wed are agreed that this case doesn’t parallel the Crandall one?” “but deterioration had indeed begun”
Sorry unkleE, I’m not trying to be dismissive , but I honestly feel this case along with 1000’s of others do parallel Dr Krandall’s. They are all pronounced dead by qualified Medical Professionals only to actually be alive. 53 Million people die every year, so to misdiagnose a few of them as dead when in fact they are alive is pretty good. I would almost consider this a miracle. 🙂
Where does your Dr Krandall say ,”but deterioration had indeed begun” ? “Pitch black” is a skin condition which usually occurs later than 40 minutes.
We don’t hear much about this phenomenon these days unless the supposed dead person is a Christian or becomes one or one of the Medical Staff is a Christian . But there is usually a book deal and talk show invitations or your own talk show to follow which happens to be the case for your Dr Krandall. If you google him, he is quite the self-promoter but no doubt a very good Doctor and well respected without question. Jeff Markin the patient however flies pretty well under the radar. I haven’t been able to find any books he’s written and his Facebook page only mentions he “Likes” a link from a religious website which has an article about his experience.
You can finds lots of miracle stories outside of Christianity. Islam claims many miracles. Since they claim Abraham as their Father as well, are their miracles any less valid than Christianity’s ?
I used to be a hard core believer like you unkleE and Josh and Kent. That was until I started reading the Bible with an open mind and started verifying what I read. If you haven’t already, read “Farwell to God” written by Charles Templeton. He was the “Billy Graham” of Canada and was close friends with him. Through extended study at a Theological Seminary which he encouraged Billy to do with him, he eventually renounced his faith in Christianity.
I’m really not trying to Poo Poo Miracles. They have merely vanished with reason.
LikeLike
Really? Cause he’s never talked to me…
LikeLike
A few years ago, I thought I was going to have to replace my lawn mower. I went out to cut my grass one Saturday and couldn’t get it to start. Even though it had worked fine the week before, nothing I did could get it to start. I finally went back inside in frustration. Some time later that day, I decided to give it one more try, just in case. It started right up. Haven’t had problems since.
I can’t explain what was wrong with it, or why it then started working. So what’s more likely: was that a miracle? Or is there some explanation I’m not aware of?
Even if Dr Crandall’s a great cardiologist, he still doesn’t know everything about the human body — no one does. Just because we don’t know why his patient was finally able to be resuscitated does not mean it was a miracle, any more than when people didn’t understand the sun that meant it was a god.
Again, if I see someone walk on water or heal an amputee, I’ll start believing in miracles. But I do not find stories like Dr Crandall’s believable at all.
By the way, thanks for the post(s) on miracles you did, UnkleE. I’ll read it/them shortly.
LikeLike
Nate-
“how do you suppose people at that time came to have such a primitive (to our way of thinking) conception of God?”
I actually think we still have a pretty primitive view of God, by and large. Even those who hold strongly to grace as taught by Jesus still fall back constantly into thinking that we must perform to earn God’s favor – that includes me. The message of grace is just foreign to us. The idea of earning a god’s favor is still part of who we are, even if we profess Christianity. I don’t want to presume that I know why that is a part of our nature, or how it came to be there. I think the difference in the modern person is that we have evolved to the point where a god as presented in scripture feels offensive to us. Yet, we still appeal to a god who measures us by performance anyway (we have the need to succeed in various arenas, etc, as a means of proving ourselves). So, we still have that, it’s just masked by our modern “sensibilities”.
LikeLike
“Really? Cause he’s never talked to me…”
Audibly? He hasn’t spoken to me audibly, either, if that is what you mean. And, I don’t think relationship necessitates audible communication. There are plenty of other kinds of communication. I see scripture as a means of communication. Also, Paul appeals to virtually everything created in Romans 1 as containing evidence of God’s existence and his care (he clothes the lillies of the field, etc, etc). I know you don’t buy this, Nate. And, that’s fine. But, I’m not advocating that God speaks audibly or appears to me.
LikeLike
Thanks Josh for your comments. “I believe I would be in line with most biblical scholars in saying that the story of the Garden of Eden is likely mythical to make a point about human nature and our broken relationship with God. I don’t take it as a literal account of actual history, and so I don’t want to try to defend it as it stands.”
There are many current day Jewish Scholars who claim none of the stories in the Torah should be taken literally. So if the OT and NT were written in a way that people from those time periods would be able to understand God, what a bout today ?
LikeLike
No offense, but I don’t think you should get to cop out of this question. If you’re saying God’s portrayal in the OT (and even some of the NT) is because people would not have understood his true nature of love and grace, you need to explain how we got that way. If God is real, and he wants a relationship with us, shouldn’t mankind’s earliest conception of him been right on the money? If it had been, I don’t see how humanity would have devolved into a more barbaric depiction of him. Do you see what I’m saying? If God had been there with us from the beginning, then people wouldn’t have expected him to be cruel and vindictive.
I’ve been a presence in my children’s lives ever since their birth. Therefore, they know exactly who I am. They haven’t had to invent their own idea of a father — they’ve had me to look to as an example. Not that I’m perfect — but my point is that they’ve never had to make up what a father is, because they already know me.
In other words, the only way ancient people could have come up with a barbaric view of God is if a loving, merciful God had never made himself known to them. And that, of course, raises a whole bunch of other questions.
By far, the simplest explanation is that our idea of God today is just that — an idea. It’s evolved into a depiction of a loving, father-figure, because our society has evolved its ideas of justice and morality. The idea of God evolved right along with us. It’s not that God was matching himself to our assumptions — we were doing that to him. We’ve created him in our own image, just like everyone before us.
LikeLike
Josh, by living in your house, are you communicating with the architect that designed it? That’s essentially the kind of communication you’re pointing to with God. You can read his book (much of which you think has been slanted by the imperfect people that wrote it) and you can live in his universe, which science shows us has evolved to this point. That’s not really a relationship.
LikeLike
By the way, for anyone following along with the posts UnkleE referenced, I’ve made a comment there. Here’s the link again, if you’re interested: http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/belief/does-god-use-miracles-to-prove-himself-should-he/#comment-7908
LikeLike
UnkleE,
I finally had time to read the Ten Healings link you posted from your site. They’re very interesting cases, certainly. But at the end of the article, you say:
Why do you think the odds are against coincidence?
There’s already research that shows some illnesses occasionally go away on their own (even cancer). And 3 or 4 of the cases mentioned in the book you reference in your article talk about the patient going to a Kathryn Kuhlman healing. There’s a good bit of controversy surrounding Kuhlman (she was a major influence on Benny Hinn), and the Wikipedia article about her contains this interesting bit of info:
I don’t want to get into a drawn out argument about these things — as I said, they’re interesting stories and certainly aren’t typical of the way most illnesses progress. So I can see why some people are convinced by them, especially if they already think miracles happen. But to me, they just aren’t strong enough cases to be evidence of true miracles.
LikeLike
Nate-
“In other words, the only way ancient people could have come up with a barbaric view of God is if a loving, merciful God had never made himself known to them. And that, of course, raises a whole bunch of other questions.”
Not true. As I briefly pointed out, I think our understanding of God today is much the same as it appeared to have been in “primitive” times, despite Jesus’ revelation bringing a physical, bodily picture of God into the world. This also would go to illustrate that I disagree with your explanation of what our ideas about God have evolved into. Many of the first Christians reverted back to a performance/reward system, as is outlined in Paul’s letters to the various churches. And, even today the vast majority of people, Christian or not, still cling to the idea that God is a punishment/reward kind of God. This is not how he revealed himself through Jesus, but we can’t let go of it. Christians talk about how everyone has to turn their lives around to be accepted by God, and non-Christians talk about doing everything they can to earn acceptance by their preferred authority (be it a god, society, “legacy”, whatever) – we all lean toward that understanding of God despite how much he has revealed himself. So, it does not follow that God had not revealed himself in various ways to “primitive” people just because that was their understanding. It is the way we “bend” with regard to God. It is the virus (“sin”) that suffocates our ability to relate to God.
“You can read his book (much of which you think has been slanted by the imperfect people that wrote it) and you can live in his universe, which science shows us has evolved to this point. That’s not really a relationship.”
First, I don’t think I implied or said that what was written was slanted by people that wrote it. If I did at some point, that was a mistake. I believe that scripture is subject to human error in it’s copying and translation, but I think what we have in the NT is very faithful to the original source material. Secondly, you’re analogy is actually somewhat decent, I think. By living in my house I can see and understand that there was someone that built it – no one would ever walk into a house or building and assume a tornado or some freak storm build a free-standing, complete, and functioning house. The way it was built can tell me certain things about the architect (that she was skilled in building, that she cared about solid structure and comfort, that she knew the laws of the city and block in which it was built, etc). So, there are lots of things I can know about the architect (the primary thing being that there was an architect) by examining the house in which I live. And, the “house” I live in isn’t the only thing the “architect” uses to communicate with me, in God’s case.
LikeLike
kcchief1-
“There are many current day Jewish Scholars who claim none of the stories in the Torah should be taken literally. So if the OT and NT were written in a way that people from those time periods would be able to understand God, what a bout today ?”
Good question. I think, in terms of written scripture that will be gathered into the “Bible”, we’re likely not going to get anything added that isn’t already there (but, I don’t know that). However, there are all kinds of was God still communicates, some of which I touched on in my response to Nate. But, in terms of written communication, I do think there is still “scripture” going around in the sense that we (Christians) write to and talk with each other about God, and are able to work through misunderstandings that one or another have. This is what Paul and others were doing in most of the NT. I think there are other ways, too.
LikeLike
But the architect doesn’t love you or know you. You don’t have a relationship with her.
And I think your explanation about why ancient people had a misconception of God is wishful thinking. If your version of God were communicating to the people of that time (as the OT claims), then they would not have believed that he wanted them to commit genocide or have slaves. Again, my children know my character well enough to know that I’m not going to tell them to hurt someone else or take something that doesn’t belong to them. But I think I made that point well enough the first time around, so I won’t bother going into it again.
LikeLike
Fair enough, Nate. You have made good points, and laid them out well, and I’m aware I won’t be able to answer all of them. Just trying to do my best to explain my thinking and understanding 🙂 Thanks for the discussion.
LikeLike
Thanks to you as well. 🙂
LikeLike
I hope everyone takes the time to read this. I also hope I am at the last stage or close to it. 🙂
James W. Fowler, a minister in the United Methodist Church, wrote “Stages of Faith” in 1981 while a professor of Theology and Human Development at Emory University. Additional research has followed. Here is a summary of the results.
1.)Preschool children often confuse fantasy and reality. Their mix of ideas are picked-up, but not fully-developed, from those around them. They may believe in God and the Tooth Fairy, but already know that the guy at the mall is not really Santa.
2.)School-age children begin to use logic and take things very literally. They may strongly and stubbornly hold onto ideas that come from trusted authorities. Their parents may still be insisting on the details of Santa’s visit to every home on Christmas eve.
3.)Teenagers become aware of multiple, conflicting belief systems, but often associate strongly with a single institution and its doctrine. These staunch believers tend to “double-down” against any challenge to the anchors of their faith. They are easily persuaded that exposure to other ideas is dangerous so that they are determined to remain isolated within their community of support.
4.)In young adulthood, with continued exposure to other peoples and their beliefs, some begin a period of critical re-examination of the elements of their faith. They may become disillusioned with their former community and move forward to independently search for a new foundation. Paradoxically, this progressive movement is often criticized as “backsliding.” Many men, especially, become “spiritual but not religious” and stop worshiping in a church.
5.)In mid-life, it sometimes occurs to people that much about life is conflicting, unknown, or even unknowable. Neither faith nor logic fully satisfy. Much has to be taken, at any given time, as a paradox or mystery. Sacred stories and symbols may be a comfort, but not a foundation. Their spirituality may merge with their intent to “live a good life.”
6.)A few older folks reach a point where they feel that life and gratitude, day by day, is sufficient blessing. There is no need to agonize over doubts, carry guilt from past mistakes, or dread what may happen in the next year, or the next moment. These folks may open themselves, within their remaining capacities, to take full satisfaction in the love of, and service to, others. These people may still embrace the formal worship of a specific divinity, but their capacity to love is no longer dependent on any given doctrine.
LikeLike
I am one of the “older folks” and I can attest that I have reached the point where I feel life –and gratitude for that life — is the sum total of my “spirituality.” The rules and regulations of religion have long been put aside and I now “worship” the fact that I’m allowed to be part of this magnificent Universe. I no longer fret over what will happen when I leave this world because I’ve learned that “now” is all we have — and I intend to enjoy every moment as it occurs.
LikeLike
Thanks Nan for your comments ! I pretty much feel the same way. 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks for sharing that, kc! I’ve definitely gone through the first 4, and I can identify with parts of 5 and 6. Not sure that I could say I’m in one particular step right now though.
LikeLike
You’re so very welcome Nate ! I’m going to submit a rather humorous version of this when I get home to find it. It equates the 6 steps to the steps of believing in Santa Claus. I think you’ll like it.
LikeLike