>
> You missed my point. I don't want to argue the literal meaning of a
> biblical translation.
> The point is that there are numerous instances of miracles in the Bible
> that lend themselves
> to natural explanation. That does not make them any less miraculous. The
> timing of those
> events made all the difference historically. Had they not occurred when
> they did, the outcome
> would have been different. God doesn't draw a distinction between what
> Iain calls Big miracles
> and Small miracles.
I can't remember coining the phrase "big miracles" and "small miracles".
Perhaps a more appropriate phrase would be "micro-miracles" and
"macro-miracles". And I agree that God doesn't draw a distinction between
them.
But it seems to me that scientists tend to prefer micro-miracles because it
seems they can be explained away by natural causes, or by coincidence. You
pray for something to happen and it happens, and you praise God for it. But
it could be explained by coincidence; a skeptic would say that it was the
consequence of natural causes, and would have happened whether or not you
prayed for it.
I think the case of the parting of the Red Sea could easily be argued either
way. Maybe God set up a chain of cause and effect (of the butterfly wings
flapping variety) that caused a mighty wind to spring up at just the time
where they needed it. Each event in the chain wouldn't have that low a
probability, but the whole sequence would end up having a staggeringly low
probability; hundreds of little events chained together. Alternatively, one
could argue that the wind was whipped up supernaturally, or that the wall of
water was held there supernaturally. Again the probability of this
happening by natural causes is staggeringly low (all the atoms just
happening to be in the right place at the right time along the lines of
Douglas Adams's "Infinite improbability drive" in "Hitchhiker's guide to the
Galaxy"). The latter explanation is of course vastly more improbable than
the first one, but when it comes to miracles one can't really argue
probabilities; what does it matter if P = 10^-100 or 10^-1000; it is still a
miracle?
On the whole, I think I prefer the "macro-miracle" interpretation to the
"chain of micro-miracles" one. In John 9:3 Jesus explains that the man was
born blind so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. What
happened was a clear supernatural miracle, displaying for all to see the
work of God and even then they refused to acknowledge it. (Though doubtless
if someone knows about the sight restoring properties of mud, they will
advise me on it ;-). I think that God reveals himself through
macro-miracles, and also His hand is present through chains of subtle
micro-miracles. But when something in Scripture looks on straightforward
reading to be a macro-miracle, I can't see the point of straining too hard
to find a "naturalistic explanation".
Best regards
Iain.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 14:14:09 EST