Chapter 5

The annals of Christianity are replete with documented accounts of miracles. The number is so great that the religion has come to be known as the religion of miracles. The very fabric of the faith is interwoven with the miracles of Christ, from the star in the east through to the resurrection.

Webster's says that when an event or effect deviates from known laws of nature, it is a miracle (italics mine). But according to church teachings, a miracle is an unusual event performed by God or through His intervention and which cannot be explained by the ordinary laws of nature. As can be seen, the church definition differs from the dictionary definition on two major points: according to the church, miracles are God's tools and no laws of nature can account for them, whereas, according to the dictionary, miracles are not necessarily God's acts and may be explainable by natural laws as yet unknown.

An event such as a magician's illusion which seems to defy laws of nature would never be classified as a miracle by either definition because, with our sophistication, we realize that a trick is used. But here our sophistication ends, for when a religious miracle occurs, we never question the method used. We just say it was a miracle, implying by placid acceptance that no law of nature can explain it - or that it would be sacrilegious to try to find one. With all due respect to God, however, I propose that the dictionary definition is the correct one; that miracles, Christian or otherwise, defy no laws of nature; that in fact, miracles can never occur once all the laws of nature are understood.

Let us examine, as an example, the miraculous star over Bethlehem which guided the Three Kings to the birthplace of Christ. It generally will be agreed that the human organism perceives events (even those classified as miracles) through the senses, and in order for these senses to be activated, a stimulus must be provided. The star over Bethlehem activated the sense of sight; therefore it is fair and reasonable to ask how or by what the sensation was caused. If you prefer (and I don't deny that you are right), the question can be asked another way: How did God make the star appear over Bethlehem? Did He move a sun similar to our own sun into the vicinity? Apparently not, unless it was a very small one, for it appeared only over Bethlehem and hence would have had to be very close to the earth. Or did God perhaps use a form of hypnotism causing a hallucination? Or did He use another method, perhaps a metallic disc of some sort to reflect the light from the sun? Or maybe the disc could produce its own light. At any rate God had to use some device or technique to act as a stimulus for human sense receptors.

It is when miracles are analyzed thus - in terms of human sense receptors - that the fallacy of attributing them to causes outside the range of natural law becomes obvious; for human sense receptors, functioning under natural laws, must be stimulated under natural laws.

Almost any present-day flying saucer report describes a device which could have been used to create the illusion at Bethlehem. If one can admit that such a device could have been used, then why insist that God used another form of stimulus? Would God's use of such a contrivance detract from His status? There seems no good reason why it should. It only changes our concept of His essence: He is a technician, not a magician. He is supernatural only in the sense that He uses a technology which at one time was beyond our comprehension. And although it is still beyond our capacity, it is no longer beyond our comprehension. If God controls the flip of a coin, He does it by some technique. If He causes a crash of thunder or a bolt of lightning, He causes it by physical laws. And if He mends a broken bone or restores sight to blinded eyes, He uses nature's forces - perhaps a laser beam to weld a detached retina.

Known laws of nature do little to explain the "miraculous" healing episode that took place on September 3, 1965, on Highway 36 south of the town of Damon, Texas. This event, involving two police officers and a huge, 300-foot flying saucer, is extraordinary in that the saucer cured an open, swollen wound on the finger of patrol deputy Robert Goode, either by design or by accident, in a matter of seconds. In the account, Goode, in a patrol car with chief deputy Billy McCoy, was returning from a high-school football game at Sweeny, Texas. Goode's left index finger was bandaged, having been bitten earlier by his son's pet alligator, and he dangled the arm with the painfully throbbing finger out the car window. Strange lights moving close to the ground in the distance caught the two men's attention, and they remarked on the unusual character of the display. At first it seemed the lights could have come from a farm at the other end of the prairie. But then, as they watched, deputy McCoy shouted, "It's coming toward us!"

When the object was overhead, the light from it illuminated the whole inside of their car, and both men later reported an accompanying intense heat. They drove off at high speed, but the object did not follow them. Stopping at a diner a few minutes later, Goode noticed that the throbbing had stopped in the injured finger. Upon removing the bandage, he discovered that the wound had closed and the swelling had gone down. "You couldn't tell I'd ever been bitten," recalled Goode to investigators later.

If the time had been fifty or a hundred years earlier, and if a saucerian had emerged from the craft proclaiming his status as an angel of God, the incident would have been classified as a miracle, and no one would ever question how it had occurred. To all intents and purposes, a supernatural being (God) would have invoked supernatural powers to perform the healing; yet if a native of an uncivilized culture on earth hearing a radio for the first time were to refer to the device as supernatural, we would be smugly amused. Is this not inconsistent? Why should that which we cannot understand be classified as a miracle? Do we, at this moment in history, know all the laws of nature? If we do, then of course it must be admitted that events which defy these laws are truly miracles. But since we don't, it is much more reasonable to assume that such events occur as a result of natural laws as yet unknown to us.

The myth that man is the supreme being of all beings subject to physical laws would sink into oblivion once we recognized that all events and effects are subject to these laws; and at that moment we would recognize God as the physical entity which He must be. Also, at that moment God would realize that we on earth are no longer the dupes of the universe.

As mentioned earlier, to admit that God is physical should detract nothing from His image; for with His technological superiority over man, He remains all-powerful. He has the ability to know our thoughts, and when His computers indicate positive results, to answer our prayers. And in all probability He has the ability to offer the kingdom of heaven to those of us who prove worthy. In heaven our angel wings will be a flying saucer and our halo the radiation from our craft. We will still be physical beings, subject to physical laws; but unlike man, we will be in complete control of these laws, and our job will be to propagate God's philosophy. Such was the promise of Jesus in John, Chapter 14, when He said, "Amen, Amen, I say to you, he who believes in me, the works I do he also shall do."

Back

TOC

Next