16 Dec 2014
While from the scientific perspective, miracles are perhaps just unexplained phenomena in our world, while on the other end, spiritual oversimplifications may be claimed before they need be.
How far does something have to reach beyond empirical understanding of our world in order for it to be classified as a miracle? Science brings a lot of clarity into our world. At least until it reaches something that it hasn’t yet be able to identify. At this point, people do one of two things with the unknown phenomena. They will explain it as a supernatural miracle, which usually simply means “God did it”, though it leaves out the “how”, “why” and “what” was involved in the doing. It is certainly plausible that, just as the first-century Christians witnessed unexplained events done by Jesus, we call events miracles only when they cannot be explained in any other way. But too be honest, are they recognized concepts of science that still don’t make sense to us on a philosophical level, or even a logistical level? Sure, science has observed that the event takes place at this time, and under these conditions – but what started it, and what type of energy is being used to maintain it?
Ofcourse, many understand that God is not the only holder of power in the spiritual realm. Fallen angels also lay claim to power, and people can partner with either. But one partner allows for self-control during power events, while the other does not. But sometimes events happen that are not done through the conduit of a person, but are simply events that happen. There is good reason to believe that if the event is beneficial to people, without any moral compromise, the God can be called as the source, but if there is some kind of subtle compromise in the output, that leaves people negatively affected relationally, or that disrupts the normal function of nature, then the source is not likely the Creator. But if God set up the universe and the laws of physics that govern it, of course it would follow that He had temporarily override them if the occasion qualifies. On the other hand, the enemy needs no more reason to disrupt the universe that to disrupt the Creators plans.
Our advancement of discovery seems rapid and robust, but the shear complexity of the universe begs to belittle the supposedly brilliant comprehension of the universe. From the minute complexities of the atom to the vast unexplored expanse of space, our feeble maps, charts, formulas, and theories would only be able to account for, at best, a portion of it. After all, man has only ever lived on planet Earth. So our perception of the universe is biased based on Earth physics. And beyond that, our local solar system setup, and then beyond that, Milky Way system setup. Be from the other end, scientists tend to conduct reseach based on experience, and focused research. And reinforcing evidence has to be brought forth to further validate initial evidence. But even with a multitude of evidence, something can still be wrong, and we are at the mercy of our own observed evidence, and our own formulas to validate them.
Ofcourse, spiritual individuals could benefit from seeing things with a more rational entrence at times, and basing their conclusions on measurable, recorded results. But on the other hand, empirical science already has partnered with the social sciences, such as psychology, and sociology, to confirm things that would otherwise be unknown for a far longer time. And these studies are clinical research driven, rather then objective, strictly observation-based discovery. They allow the general average to conclude general solution. And much more studies have to be done contrasted with non-living matter experiments. So science can benefit from philosophy, no question, but it can also benefit from potentially perceiving a Creator behind the veil. It cannot hurt to consider all of the options, and if science is moved forward but curiosity in discovery, how can a long-suggested premise be dismissed without tests being done that acknowledge the premise?? Growth doesn’t happen without risk, and breakthroughs don’t happen without failure. If it weren’t for failures in science, we would have no incandescent light bulb to launch from…