Two takes on miracles

September 10, 2012 • 8:47 am

First there’s this classic graph from LOLwtfCOMICS:

I found that a pretty convincing argument against the reality of miracles (though Hume is equally convincing)—that is, until reader Timothy called my attention to today’s edition of Ryan North’s Dinosaur Comics.  Miracles aren’t dropping off, but getting more numerous than ever!

23 thoughts on “Two takes on miracles

        1. You don’t even need a machine. If you just wish real hard, the bread magically becomes Jesus, but in a way that’s totally undetectable by science! It’s a miracle!

          1. I believe the proper Conway-Morrisian way of interpreting that is “Science in its present primitive state has very little useful to say about any of these events: just because they are inexplicable does not mean that they did not happen.”

  1. That second cartoon reminds me of a ‘sophisticated’ version of miracles I have heard: the miracle is not the event — the miracle instead is the act of faith on the part of the believer. The miracle is the warm and fuzzy feeling that one is close to God. That’s a miracle.

    This allows absolutely everything and anything to be a ‘miracle’ because the believer is not only the judge: like God, he or she performs a miracle every time they believe.

    This tactic was presumably adopted to make miracles comport more with a rational world. It also allows one to constantly fudge all criticism. I suppose that’s one way of harmonizing faith with reality.

    1. The miracle is the warm and fuzzy feeling that one is close to God.

      Sounds to me like they’re missing the standard signals on when an urgent change of underwear is in order…which would certainly explain a great deal….


    2. With the best of intentions, Ralph Waldo Emerson suggested that in a mature outlook literally every (good?) thing is a miracle. But if that is so, it becomes a less meaningful category.

Leave a Reply