Yes, miracles are miracles because they are what they are – something supernatural or beyond the ordinary. They are amazing, awesome, marvelous, astonishing, fascinating, awe-inspiring, and wonderful! So, who doesn’t like miracles?
From its Latin derivation “miraculum” (which literally means “wonder” or “a sight to behold”), a miracle is traditionally defined, from a Christian perspective, as “a supernatural sign or wonder, brought about by God, signifying his glory and the salvation of humans.”
Then also, there’s the secular definition of miracles from the rational perspective: “Miracles are purposeful disruptions or transgressions of the regularities of the physical world whose originating cause is itself not of the physical world.”
From these two definitions, let’s take note of the bottom-line or common elements: 1) a “supernatural sign or wonder” or “purposeful disruptions or transgressions of the regularities of the physical world;” 2) “brought about by God” or “the originating cause is NOT of the physical world;” 3) “signifying God’s glory and human salvation.”
Observably, while the rational definition stops short of the “purpose” of disruption or transgression, the Church further ventures that a miracle is a “sign perceived by the senses and makes present the supernatural order, God’s governance of nature, and his loving plan of salvation”, and as its intended effect, “miracles are a call to faith”.
In no uncertain terms, the Church spurns the impossibility or uncertainty of miracles: “If anyone says that all miracles are impossible, and that therefore all reports of them, even those contained in Sacred Scriptures, are to be set aside as fables or myths; or that miracles can never be known with certainty, nor can the divine origin of the Christian religion be proved from them: let him be anathema” (Vatican Council I, Dei Filius, no. 3).
Now, are miracles really disruptions or transgressions of nature? Or, are they simply extensions of nature?
Let me cite some interesting insights from some contemporary thinkers, philosophers and theologians.
First is Paul Fiddes, professor of systematic theology at the University of Oxford.
Fiddes firstly claims that God relates to the world in partnership. “God calls for cooperation from created beings in his project of creation. So it’s a relationship of participation. God participates in the world and the world participates in God,” Fiddes said.
But, in this participation, does God intervene in the world or does things that are contrary to the laws of nature?
Fiddes quickly answers: “I don’t find the notion of intervention helpful because it implies a certain coerciveness or sort of breaking in. But what I’m thinking is that it is an engagement which is one of persuasive love rather than coercion.”
If not intervention or transgression of nature, what’s a miracle then?
“A miracle is something which is new, in a sense that it causes wonder and attention just because it doesn’t fit into an established pattern. I don’t think a miracle is a transgression, it is only an extension of nature. God is taking what is there and doing something new with it, and the whole cosmos is able in its own way at different levels to respond to the urging of God’s spirit,” Fiddes explained.
For Fiddes, hence, miracles are something new that emanates from the cooperative relationship between God and the world; miracles are but extensions of nature, not disruptions or transgressions of nature, reflecting a deep continuing correlation between creator and creation.
Second, is from Hugh McCann (died in 2016), former professor of philosophy at Texas A & M University.
McCann believes that God, as absolute sovereign, is responsible for the existence of the world and thus simultaneously sees both man’s prayer and its answer.
“As far as prayer is concerned, God in creating the world sees both the prayer of humans and the answer in one and the same act of God. Of course, for us, it’s different, as it occurs at different temporal and spatial considerations. But God can see things and the answer to the prayer from a timeless perspective,” McCann pointed out.
Is God, for McCann, intervening or transgressing nature in making miracles?
“No. God is fully involved, so there’s no space for intervention. God doesn’t need to intervene because God’s creation is already comprehensive. Everything that happens, including what we call normal or natural and those we call miracles are actually the same kind of thing for God,” McCann replied.
Third is British philosopher and Anglican priest, Keith Ward.
For Ward, miracles are acts of God, who is an invisible agent, differing may be from natural processes but are in conformity with God’s purpose and of the whole universe.
“The universe is not like a machine or a set of blind laws operating, but as itself is an intentional action. So, in a sense, the whole universe is an act of God as intended by God to be what it is. (Hence), the plausibility of miracles lies in the fact that it is better that the universe exists ‘differently because there is God’ than it exists ‘not differently because there is no God’.” Ward profoundly explained.
Ah, in the final analysis, for me, if miracles are not transgressions but are simply extensions of nature or that miracles are not “supernaturally contrary” but encompasses what is natural, I like to infer then that even without the extraordinary effects, our DAILY LIFE’s ORDINARY BLESSINGS – having a good night sleep and waking up in the morning, seeing the sun rise or the clear blue skies, having food on the table, being with our family and loved ones, being able to do not only our tasks but also those which we want to do, etc., etc. – can also be considered miracles.
Yes, I may acknowledge the seeming bifurcation between the natural and supernatural – that is, from the human perspective, only the natural is perceivable, but for God they are one and the same. But whatever it is, what is more exigent for me is having a meaningful, purposeful, and satisfying life – and that itself is a miracle.
Life, in itself, is miracle. And, WE are God’s greatest miracle!