# Scientific explanations for religious phenomena: reasonable or unreasonable? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 9, 2005, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-explanations-for-religious-phenomena-reasonable-or-unreasonable/289131 "2005-02-09T03:44:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-explanations-for-religious-phenomena-reasonable-or-unreasonable/289131/61 "2005-02-10T16:04:14Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > You can rule out the impossible _a priori_ and miracles are impossible by definition. If they weren’t impossible, they couldn’t be miracles. > > (And I will define “impossible” as any event or phenomenon which would violate the known laws of physics) > > It is impossible for a dead body to come back to life therefore it didn’t happen. Calling it a “miracle” does not qualify its innate impossibility in any way. It’s no different than calling it “magic.” The distinction between impossible and “miraculous” is utterly vacuous. Your definition of miracle is a tautology, perhaps we are using the word differently. By ‘miracle’ I mean unexplained phenomena that apparently don’t conform to currently understood laws. I’m confident that examination will reveal they are either lies, self-deception or potentially explicable by developments in science but I’m not going to assume that from the off or dismiss the phenomena in case there is something to learn. As we have no idea what reality is - we don’t have a theory of everything and we are limited to our senses and instrumentation tied to current levels of tech development - then it is possible that all sorts of weird shit has a ‘natural’ explanation, if we bothered to take it seriously. You simple cannot dismiss stuff with a magic label of ‘miracle’ just because it does not conform to your current understanding of the laws of nature. For all I know a unified theory of everything will expand our understanding of reality to embrace what are currently considered ‘paranormal’ phenomena just as our expanding understanding of low level electric fields and the brain are providing insights into the UFO and Abduction phenomena. Too often ‘skeptic’ translates into ‘close-minded’. and we throw the baby out with the bath water. Continental Drift was considered lunacy for decades because ‘everyone knew’ it was absurd. Skeptics need to be open-minded and not dismiss anything a priori. As for your dead body example - I agree, it’s highly unlikely in the extreme but if investigating the incident shows a body did come back to life that’d be pretty interesting. The job of the skeptic is to examine the concrete evidence that the incident happened, which I am confident will make it evaporate like dew at dawn. Your position seems to come very close to dismissing anything that doesn’t fit your personal view of the laws of nature. In practice I’m sure we dismiss the same things - but I’m interested in keeping a skeptical eye on even outrageous things in case investigation can teach us something new, as it has in the past. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-explanations-for-religious-phenomena-reasonable-or-unreasonable/289131/62 "2005-02-10T16:30:56Z")
I dismiss the impossible as impossible. That is a perfectly reasonable stance. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-explanations-for-religious-phenomena-reasonable-or-unreasonable/289131/63 "2005-02-10T16:43:35Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > You can rule out the impossible _a priori_ and miracles are impossible by definition. You keep saying that, but I have yet to encounter ANY such definition from any authoritative source. Here is what [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=miracle) has to say: > [@](#): > > “An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God: ‘Miracles are spontaneous, they cannot be summoned, but come of themselves’ (Katherine Anne Porter).” Nothing there about miracles being impossible. You may _believe_ them to be impossible, but they are not defined in such a manner. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-explanations-for-religious-phenomena-reasonable-or-unreasonable/289131/64 "2005-02-10T16:43:48Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I dismiss the impossible as impossible. That is a perfectly reasonable stance. Reasonable or not it’s still a tautology to define ‘miracle’ as ‘impossible’. In practice I agree that life is too short and some rule of thumb is needed, I’m just aware of how many scientific advances were held up by phenomena being dismissed as ‘impossible’ by sober minds. In practice too - I’m all in favour of subjecting miracle claims to rigorous study so as to stop credulous minds being taken in. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-explanations-for-religious-phenomena-reasonable-or-unreasonable/289131/65 "2005-02-10T16:52:14Z")
I think we’re stuck on different definitions for “miracle.” For you, it’s an unexplained phenomenon, for me, a miracle has to be an authentically “supernatural” event or phenomenon, not just an unexplained one. To my way of thinking, anything which occurs naturally cannot be called a miracle. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-explanations-for-religious-phenomena-reasonable-or-unreasonable/289131/66 "2005-02-10T17:50:46Z")
That’s not what you said earlier though, **Diogenes**. You didn’t say that this was merely a difference in viewpoint. Rather, you repeatedly (and emphatically!) stated that a miracle is impossible _by definition_. As we’ve seen, that simply isn’t true. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-explanations-for-religious-phenomena-reasonable-or-unreasonable/289131/67 "2005-02-10T17:57:56Z")
> [@pepperlandgirl](#): > > **Jthunder** , I think you are right when you say the miracle is in the timing, and I understand why you chose the parting of the Red Sea to make this point. But I think you might have had more success with your point if you chose a real world example, as they suggested, to illustrate your point. You should know that with this group, picking a miracle from the Bible and say “Assume it’s absolutely true, then it’s obviously a miracle, therefore miracles are possible” isn’t going to win any points for your side. For starters, nobody arguing against the possibility is going to make that assumption with you. True, but I wasn’t trying to prove that miracles are possible. As I repeatedly explained to **DtC** , the point I was addressing was whether scientific explanations alone would be sufficient to debunk an alleged miracle. The question of whether miracles do occur is a related but separate question altogether. In fact, I explained this distinction numerous times, over the course of this discussion. I’m a bit disappointed that I’ve been forced to explain it again. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-explanations-for-religious-phenomena-reasonable-or-unreasonable/289131/68 "2005-02-10T18:03:28Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > That’s not what you said earlier though, **Diogenes**. You didn’t say that this was merely a difference in viewpoint. > > Rather, you repeatedly (and emphatically!) stated that a miracle is impossible _by definition_. As we’ve seen, that simply isn’t true. I had no idea there was another definition. I thought that a miracle had to be an _ipso facto_ supernatural event, I don’t see how a natural event can be called a miracle without voiding the significance of the term. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-explanations-for-religious-phenomena-reasonable-or-unreasonable/289131/69 "2005-02-10T18:05:37Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > As we’ve seen, that simply isn’t true. When have we “seen” that? If you want to call natural phenomena “miracles,” then, whatever, but to me it becomes a meaningless word at that point. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-explanations-for-religious-phenomena-reasonable-or-unreasonable/289131/70 "2005-02-10T18:11:44Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > True, but I wasn’t trying to prove that miracles are possible. As I repeatedly explained to **DtC** , the point I was addressing was whether scientific explanations alone would be sufficient to debunk an alleged miracle. The question of whether miracles do occur is a related but separate question altogether. > > In fact, I explained this distinction numerous times, over the course of this discussion. I’m a bit disappointed that I’ve been forced to explain it again. Yes, a natural explanation alone is enough to debunk anything as a “miracle” as long as you invest the word “miracle” with any sort of supernatural or “divine” significance. And your Red Sea example is still a tautology. You’re hypothesizing an extraordinary event which has not actually occurred in reality in order to call it “miraculous.” I’m sorry but all you’re doing is saying that if a miracle happened it would be a miracle. And even an extraordinarily fortuitous natural event would still be a natural event and would still be a necessarily preferable explanation to an invisible, magic, superman in the sky. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-explanations-for-religious-phenomena-reasonable-or-unreasonable/289131/71 "2005-02-10T18:15:32Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > When have we “seen” that? When I cited the _actual_ definition of “miracle,” which said nothing about miracles being impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-explanations-for-religious-phenomena-reasonable-or-unreasonable/289131/72 "2005-02-10T18:18:40Z")
> [@Othersider](#): > > Equating these two is bound to piss off some people. :smack: 😉 You’re right. There are living eyewitnesses of UFOs. 🙂 > [@](#): > > I mean, for all I know, God may have manifested himself in another burning bush, or a tortilla in Mexico, and be talking with someone right now. Do you think we could explain that one away scientifically? Maybe. Even if we couldn’t, there would still be many people that refuse to accept that it was actually a miracle, dismissing it as a fluke, a wrinkle in time, a coincidence amongst coincidences…but, whatever. > > It’s easy to claim ignorance when you take a fairly agnostic view of things that aren’t entirely mundane and empirical. 🙂 My dismissal of Genesis and Exodus is not from the inherent impossibility of the events, but from the lack of evidence that they happened, and evidence that they did not. Consider the Flood. It is clearly scientifically impossible, but that is only important in the sense that the story is religion, not science, and therefore should not be taught in schools. The reason I reject it is that the large amount of geological and cultural evidence that it did not happen. So I disagree with Dio - an impossible event should be accepted if there is a convincing set of evidence that it did happen - and the level needs to be set very high. That there are no convincing cases of miracles may not prove they don’t happen, but they strongly suggest it. ---
**Author:** ![SkipMagic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skipmagic/32/20706_2.png) [@SkipMagic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkipMagic)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-explanations-for-religious-phenomena-reasonable-or-unreasonable/289131/73 "2005-02-10T18:18:52Z")
The on-line version of the Oxford English Dictionary defines “miracle” as: > [@](#): > > A marvellous event not ascribable to human power or the operation of any natural force and therefore attributed to supernatural, esp. divine, agency; esp. an act (e.g. of healing) demonstrating control over nature and serving as evidence that the agent is either divine or divinely favoured. [Dictionary.com](http://Dictionary.com) is handy for quick-and-dirty definitions, but it’s not nearly as complete as the OED. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-explanations-for-religious-phenomena-reasonable-or-unreasonable/289131/74 "2005-02-10T18:20:10Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I had no idea there was another definition. I thought that a miracle had to be an _ipso facto_ supernatural event, > > I don’t see how a natural event can be called a miracle without voiding the significance of the term. Dude, did you even bother reading the definition that I cited? Allow me to reproduce it for your convenience. > [@](#): > > “An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God: ‘Miracles are spontaneous, they cannot be summoned, but come of themselves’ (Katherine Anne Porter).” The definition DOES say that miracles are supernatural. It does NOT state that they are natural events. What you claimed is that miracles are _by definition_, impossible. Contrary to your claim though, its definition says nothing of the sort. Of course, you could insist that no supernatural events can ever occur – but then, your statement would not be true “by definition,” as you claimed. Rather, it would only be true if your premise (i.e. that supernatural events can never occur) turns out to be accurate. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-explanations-for-religious-phenomena-reasonable-or-unreasonable/289131/75 "2005-02-10T18:24:28Z")
While we’re at it, we might wonder why a god would work miracles. I see two reasons: a godly cheat code (like the parting of the Red Sea or stopping the sun) to accomplish some end; and to prove his existence. The first seems to indicate that god can’t get the job done without the cheat. But the second reason would argue that the miracle would be a very convincing one, so miracles with potential explanations as coincidence would seem not to qualify as true miracles. I know a current view is that miracles diminish faith, but that is not the way god supposedly worked during the Exodus. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-explanations-for-religious-phenomena-reasonable-or-unreasonable/289131/76 "2005-02-10T18:55:45Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Dude, did you even bother reading the definition that I cited? Allow me to reproduce it for your convenience. > > The definition DOES say that miracles are supernatural. It does NOT state that they are natural events. > > What you claimed is that miracles are _by definition_, impossible. Contrary to your claim though, its definition says nothing of the sort. > > Of course, you could insist that no supernatural events can ever occur – but then, your statement would not be true “by definition,” as you claimed. Rather, it would only be true if your premise (i.e. that supernatural events can never occur) turns out to be accurate. Wait a asecond. If miracles are defined as necessarily “supernatural,” then I stand by my first assertion. Miracles are impossible by definition because “supernatural” is _synonomous_ with "impossible. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-explanations-for-religious-phenomena-reasonable-or-unreasonable/289131/77 "2005-02-10T19:51:22Z")
I already addressed that point, **Diogenes**. “Supernatural” is NOT synonymous with “impossible.” I don’t think you’ve been reading this thread very well. In fact, let us consult [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=supernatural) again, shall we? It defines “supernatural” as: > [@](#): > > 1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. > 2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. > 3. Of or relating to a deity. > 4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous. > 5. Of or relating to the miraculous. Nothing there about the supernatural being impossible. Not one bit. As **tagos** said, miracles may be impossible _within your specific worldview_. This does NOT mean that they are impossible “by definition,” nor does it mean that the supernatural is impossible “by definition” either. In effect, you are concocting your own definitions for these terms, which is a poor strategy for a sincere truth-seeker to adopt. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-explanations-for-religious-phenomena-reasonable-or-unreasonable/289131/78 "2005-02-10T19:59:35Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. > 2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. > 3. Of or relating to a deity. > 4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous. > 5. Of or relating to the miraculous. 1. “Outside the natural world” means “doesn’t exist.” Everything whch exisists, exists necessarily with the natural universe. There is no such thing as “outside” of the natural universe, there fore there can be no _existence_ outside of it. 2. A “violation of natural forces” mean impossible. Plain and simple. It’s the same thing. Impossible means whatever is not permitted by natural forces, so does “supernatural.” If an event does not violate natural law- if it is not “impossible”- then it is not supernatural. 3, “Deity” is a gibberish word. It’s place filling word for an entity which does impossible things and doe not exist “in the natural world,” (i.e. it does not exist) ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-explanations-for-religious-phenomena-reasonable-or-unreasonable/289131/79 "2005-02-10T20:24:44Z")
> [@](#): > > Nothing there about the supernatural being impossible… Hey, \*\*JThunder \*\* what does [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) say about “sophistry”? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-explanations-for-religious-phenomena-reasonable-or-unreasonable/289131/80 "2005-02-10T20:57:52Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > 1. “Outside the natural world” means “doesn’t exist.” Everything whch exisists, exists necessarily with the natural universe. There is no such thing as “outside” of the natural universe, there fore there can be no _existence_ outside of it. > > 2. A “violation of natural forces” mean impossible. Plain and simple. It’s the same thing. Impossible means whatever is not permitted by natural forces, so does “supernatural.” If an event does not violate natural law- if it is not “impossible”- then it is not supernatural. > > 3, “Deity” is a gibberish word. It’s place filling word for an entity which does impossible things and doe not exist “in the natural world,” (i.e. it does not exist) In essence, much of what you say here is correct – all that is, is “of one piece” and conforms to theoretically understandable rules, within the bounds of what we can understand of them. However, there’s a point at which the people who advance this view “palm a card” – there’s an unspoken “(and what we can detect as ‘the material world’ is all that there is)” attached to that definition. A world in which things occur according to natural laws owing to a God who made it that way, differs only in His existence from the world of philosophical Materialism. But that is a profound difference, with potential teleological implications. If you want to say, “miracle” as a breaking of “natural law” by “supernatural means” does not happen, fine. But the question then becomes, if an event is seen as miraculous, does your definition of “natural law” stretch to permit such an event to have happened? My own (non theophanic) life has included a number of what the skeptical would call “fortuitous coincidences” that have brought me to where I am. For me, they’re **miracles** – notwithstanding the fact that not a one of them ever “broke the laws of physics” – but they were of such import to who I was and who I’ve become, and so improbable by a beforehand random-chance statistical imputation, that they amount to miracles for me. You wanna think they were coincidence, and not any act of God? Fine. It doesn’t bother me. But I (self-centeredly) see a teleology behind them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-explanations-for-religious-phenomena-reasonable-or-unreasonable/289131.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-explanations-for-religious-phenomena-reasonable-or-unreasonable/289131.md?page=5)