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 
Hi Charity! Thanks for the great comment.
Yeah, this sounds just like something I could have written. Finding the problems in the Bible was a massive blow to my faith. And I agree that I can’t think of anything that would bring me back to Christianity at this point. I don’t say that often, because I think most Christians would see it as being close-minded. But it’s not that at all — just like you said, we can’t unlearn what we’ve learned. I find Christianity as unbelievable as Norse mythology at this point. Even if I witnessed a genuine miracle, I might begin to believe in a god, but I highly doubt it would be the Christian god.
Thanks again for your comment, and I hope you’ll feel free to comment here any time!
LikeLike
Charity and Nate,
I can relate to both of your stories. I just haven’t come to the point of conceding that everything happened by accident. I watched a documentary I recorded again last night by the BBC where they were interviewing a Canadian Think tank of Scientists . While they never mentioned God, they are re-evaluating the Big Bang Theory , not to discount it totally but to say there had to be a “Cause” for the “Effect”.
Though I don’t see myself ever becoming a Christian again either, I will hold out being a Deist while I see this play out. And as I said in an earlier comment, I think we all have to admit we are Agnostics when an Agnostic says, “I cannot know”
LikeLike
I think there was a cause to the Big Bang too, I just don’t see anything to make me think that cause must have been a god, or even intelligent. We tend to imagine that there was a period of “nothing” before “something” happened. But even that idea could be wrong… we’re not sure at this point that “nothing” can even exist…
But for me, I realized I was more an atheist than a deist when I thought about something Dawkins said in The God Delusion. He made the point that if we see the complexity of the universe as an argument for God (as I did), surely such a God would be more complex than the universe we see, since he’s its creator. But what’s more likely to exist on its own? A collection of elements that over billions of years forms into the universe that we inhabit today, or a fully-functional, intelligent being that has the power to create matter? For me, the former seemed easier to grasp.
That being said, I can easily see where someone comes down on the other side of that question. And I think it’s possible that there’s a “spiritual realm,” for lack of a better term. So for all I know, there may very well be a god. So I don’t view atheists and deists at odds in any way — I get the impression that you feel the same way.
If there is a god, I don’t think he cares too much whether we believe in him or not, especially since he hasn’t gone out of his way to make himself known to us. If he cares about anything we do, it’s likely how we treat one another. So deist, atheist, Buddhist, Christian — I don’t think he cares too much one way or the other.
And I do agree with your statement about agnosticism, by the way. I sometimes use that term to describe myself when I’m talking to non-religiophiles (I think I just made that term up…), because “atheist” sometimes brings the wrong connotation. The most accurate definition of my current view is “agnostic-atheist.”
LikeLike
unkleE: You wrote: “But your mind seems to be made up regardless of the evidence.Doubtless the same could be said about me. But it isn’t so.”
From things I’ve read on this blog as well as discussions I’ve had with you on my own blog, I think you’re misguided about your last sentence. I don’t mean this to be rude, but from my perspective (and I would daresay kcchief1’s as well), this is not how you come across.
Just because you consult so many different sources does not necessarily mean your evidence is any more true or accurate that anyone else’s. in the end, if you are convinced, that’s what’s important. Just don’t assume it works for everyone else the same way.
One final comment — I LOVE Charity’s last paragraph. It speaks volumes and I couldn’t agree more.
LikeLike
Hi Nan. I was referring to the evidence for miracles, on which I can be open-minded for the reasons I gave.
“Just because you consult so many different sources does not necessarily mean your evidence is any more true or accurate that anyone else’s. in the end, if you are convinced, that’s what’s important. Just don’t assume it works for everyone else the same way.”
Based on past discussions, I don’t think there would be value in you and I discussing this, do you? But I will continue to try to base what I think on the best evidence, and you of course are free to do the same, or not.
Best wishes.
LikeLike
Thanks Nate for your comments. I think we do share a lot of common areas. I also believe if there turns out to be a God, he won’t hold the fact that one is an Atheist, Deist, Buddist, Hindu, Muslim, etc against them !
BTW even Dawkins has conceded there could be a cause , even a creator but thinks it would be some alien life form. And then it would have to have a creator and so on and so on. I saw this in an interview he did.
I think you hit on something when you mentioned a spiritual realm. Bishop Spong feels that God may be a spirit that inhabits everything and is everywhere instead of a being. He wrote a book called Eternal Life: A New Vision. I think it is a book even an Atheist could enjoy reading. Even though he still claims to be a Christian , he is very progressive and is not well thought of in the Evangelical World. My kind of guy ! Ha!
LikeLike
You wrote: “So why doesn’t God do that?”
You have never seen a miracle. But you only believe that he doesn’t. Suppose he performs one for you. What will you do then?
Suppose you ask for a very specific miracle of great power, and he performs it for you at your request. Will you then do whatever he requires of you?
LikeLike
Yes, I think I would. As long as I was convinced it was an actual miracle, of course.
LikeLike
I kinda made a deal with god towards the end of my faith – make someone regrow his limb (not via medical methods e.g. transplant an arm for example) but literally regrow it.
Doesn’t have to be infront of my eyes but it must be well substantiated and testified and then I’ll believe.
All the so called miracles I’ve heard/seen so far can all be within the possibility of medical science – yes even raising the dead.
LikeLike
Raising the dead? Say your grandfather, whom you knew well, had been dead for several weeks or even several years. Now say a stranger walked into town, approached you and said that he spoke for god and was willing to give you sign to prove it.
You said, “bring my grandfather back.” it doesnt matter whether you think he can or cannot. If he did not do you, you’d likely feel justified in thinking he was nut case, but if he immediately resurrected your grandfather, I wouldnt ask, “what manner of science is this?” I’d me amazed and speechless.
and somehow, i’m not sure that that alone would convince me. There are many things that I cannot explain, but inability to explain does not mean they do not have a natural explanation. there are several shows on TV that are based off of tricking people with “magic.” The people are genuinely amazed and have no idea how the trick was done – yet no rational person now believes in magic because of it.
The fact is, we see no miracles and the miracles we have been told about are simply unverifiable claims, made people during very very superstitious times. Are we to just assume they are right based on their claim?
LikeLike
Good example on raising the dead, William. I think Powell was probably talking about those cases where someone is in the hospital, pronounced dead, and “come back to life” within a relatively short period (but perhaps a bit longer than is typical). And using those two examples, I agree with both of you. Pretty convincing in your scenario, but not in Powell’s.
LikeLike
“The fact is, we see no miracles and the miracles we have been told about are simply unverifiable claims,”
No. The fact is merely that you have seen no miracles.
When you experience a miracle, you will learn that telling others of it brings pain and hatred down on you. But the truth remains nevertheless.
LikeLike