Science vs. Religion Conclusion: The Issue of Miracles

Science vs. Religion is a immeasurably vast topic and I plan on revisiting the subject regularly throughout the life of this blog. For now, though, let's conclude this brief series with a few closing thoughts on the subject of miracles.

Miracles, or direct divine involvement in human affairs, often directly demonstrate the divide between science and religion. James E. Talmage discussed the relationship between miracles and science in his book Articles of Faith:

Miracles are commonly regarded as occurrences in opposition to the laws of nature. Such a conception is plainly erroneous, for the laws of nature are inviolable. However, as human understanding of these laws is at best but imperfect, events strictly in accordance with natural law may appear contrary thereto. The entire constitution of nature is founded on system and order; the laws of nature, however, are graded as are the laws of man. The operation of a higher law in any particular case does not destroy the actuality of an inferior one.

In other words, Jesus walking on water was not a violation of natural law--from a physics perspective He simply created enough buoyant force to counteract the pull of gravity allowing Him to walk across water as if it were land. The fact that a common person wouldn't be able to create any such buoyant force at a moment's notice doesn't mean that any of the laws of physics were violated.

Many people have witnessed first-hand, or heard the testimony of someone who has, a miraculous occurrence that seemingly defies scientific explanation--a miraculous healing, for example. Of course, there will always be a scientific explanation for the miracle--meaning the processes involved could always be explained by the simple application of natural laws (although perhaps ones that mankind does not fully understand yet), but it's usually the cause of the miracle that remains a mystery. Take the transmutation of water into wine, for example: basically it's a simple chemical transformation and could undoubtedly be expressed in a series of chemical equations and/or molecular diagrams (not that the people at the time had the requisite degree of scientific knowledge to do so, but I digress...) It's not that the actual science behind the transformation is incomprehensible, but the source of the transformation. What caused the transformation to happen at that time, when such chemical interactions don't seem to happen 'naturally' (i.e. in the normal course of events)?

It is often this 'normal course of events' that throws people off. Reading from Helaman 16:

And they began to reason and to contend among themselves, saying:
That it is not reasonable that such a being as a Christ shall come; (Hel 16:17-18)

In Nephite times and in present times, there is a common tendency for people to consciously allow science to influence their interpretation of spiritual things. Often one hears about something 'miraculous' or 'abnormal' in scripture or in real life and discounts it immediately because it's not "reasonable".

It's not reasonable for Joseph Smith to have translated the Book of Mormon from ancient plates.
It's not reasonable for Jonah to have lived inside a whale for three days.
It's not reasonable for Adam, Methusaleh, and others to have lived to be 900 years old.
It's not reasonable for Christ to have been able to feed five thousand people with a few loaves and fishes.
It's not reasonable for the Apostle John to be able to remain on the Earth without dying.
And so on...

I've always been surprised at how many active church members even, discount many of the happenings of scripture due to 'reason': I've heard many people say it's not 'reasonable' for Lehi or the Jaredites to have travelled all the way to the promised land in primitive boats. It's not 'reasonable' for the Book of Mormon to actually be a history of a real people on the Earth rather than just a spiritual fable.

Here's the problem: Even ignoring all the other 'miracles' that happened in Jesus Christ's mortal life, we're still left with two insurmountable obstacles: the atonement and the resurrection. We're told Jesus Christ suffered for the sins of all mankind, bleeding from every pore, and then after being crucified was resurrected three days later. Neither one of these things is even remotely 'reasonable' by any amount of logical analysis. Yet they serve as the fundamental foundation of Christian faith.

In other words: if the atonement and resurrection didn't happen as written, our church and every other Christian church has no purpose whatsoever for existing, and we have no business being Christian.

All Christians need to ask themselves: do I really believe Christ rose again on the third day? And if so, why then is it hard for me to believe that someone once lived to be 900 years old... Which one is the greater miracle? Why is it I can believe Christ could suffer for the sins of the world, or fast for forty days, but it is hard for me to believe that the Jaredites could have travelled great distances across the ocean by boat without sinking or getting separated. Again, which one is the greater miracle?

The main point of this article--and this entire series--is that learning wisdom means learning to recognize the things we don't know. Whether your philosophy of choice is based purely on science or scripture or both, the simple fact is there aren't answers for everything, and the worst thing we can do is make assumptions and 'guess' about the way things are without the requisite knowledge. Truth is truth, and all of us need to accept that many things related to our universe and beyond could still be true despite not presently having a complete explanation. This is true of the existence of God, the stories in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, or any other area related to mankind and our ultimate destiny.

"I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things." -- 1 Nephi 11:17