Labels

HAGIOGRAPHY: Miracles, Evidence, and Belief.


A collage showing Augustine of Hippo, Caesarius of Heisterbach, Thomas Aquinas, and Freddie Mercury.
Four important perspectives on the theology of miracles - Augustine of Hippo, Caesarius of Heisterbach, Thomas Aquinas, and Fredericus Mercurius (known in vernacular literature as Freddie Mercury)

In the 1989 single ‘The Miracle’ from the album of the same name, Freddie Mercury, lead singer of the legendary rock band Queen sings -

“Every drop of rain that falls
In Sahara Desert says it all
It's a miracle
All God's creations great and small
The Golden Gate and the Taj Mahal
That's a miracle…” - Queen, The Miracle.

While there’s no precise record of his taste in music, it is a sentiment that Augustine of Hippo could quite possibly have approved of.  As Benedicta Ward explains in Miracles and the Medieval Mind for Augustine the only miracle was the miracle of Creation – in that it was a revelation of the mysterious creative power of God (Ward, p. 3).  Natural everyday occurrences from rainfall to child birth were all miracles contained within this singular miracle.  Bound up in the miracle of creation were innumerable possibilities.  Augustine would argue that humankind was so exposed to these miraculous events that it would take more to provoke a sense of awe, of wonder, of reverence.  Therefore events which appeared to run against the laws of nature, which were in fact inherent in the singular miracle of creation, were required - whether these wonderous events were marvels, portents, or signs.  Augustine viewed these things as being the result of hidden causes, which while being inherent in creation, were largely unknown to man.  This also distinctly included miraculous healings - with Augustine using the Miracles of St Stephen in his work.  This could in one way be seen as almost a spiritual form of hidden variable theory – an idea within quantum mechanics which attempts to provide explanations by factoring in unknown variables which either cannot or have not been observed.  

In City of God, Book XXI, Chapter 8, Augustine makes a similar argument regarding portents - i.e. that no portent was contrary to  nature.  Indeed for Augustine 'marvels' included signs, portents, and monsters.  While Anselm would divide the miracle from that which happened by natural processes, and from the actions of humans, Augustine's view is lest distinct.

'Augustine argues that there is only one miracle, that of creation, with it's corollary of re-creation by the resurrection of Christ.   God, he held, created the world out of nothing in six days, and within that initial creation he planted all the possibilities for the future,'  Benedicta Ward, Miracles in the Medieval Mind (1982), p. 3

One fundamental element of Augustine’s hidden causes was prayer.  Augustine’s writing, particularly four texts - including ‘De Civitates Dei’ (‘The City of God’), form much of the background to medieval thought on nature and the miraculous.  Views on miracles have changed over time, and multiple positions have been developed by individuals of many different backgrounds.  However to engage in the question of whether Christians in the English speaking world still believe in miracles it is important to examine the context of that belief - much of which was developed in the medieval period. This post explores the theological aspects of belief in miracles, how it developed over time, and how it influences belief today.

In a recent tweet, biological anthropologist (and President of Humanists UK) Prof. Alice Roberts posted the following 

–

The tweet Professor Roberts was commenting on was from the Diocese of Oxford noting that the transmutation of water into wine at the Wedding at Cana.  While it does not appear in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) it appears in the Gospel of John and in general Christian tradition is considered to be the first public miracle performed by Jesus, and is the first of the seven signs of the Gospel of John.   The passage has long been seen as a sign of approval of earthly celebration and has also been used as an argument that Christians need not abstain from alcohol on religious grounds.  It is frequently used to highlight that fact that Jesus was a welcome figure even before the formal start of his public ministry.  There is also a notable connection with Moses first miracle - turning water to blood.  Some see this narrative as an allegory - Jesus helping in the celebration of human love - showing through a supernatural gift.  Some see it as very literal.  Both are centred on beliefs around who Jesus was, the humanity of the Messiah - something of great significance in terms of Christology.  Thus the miracles of Jesus are perhaps more central that any other miracle narratives.  It is worth noting that miracles are generally spoken of in terms of 'signs' and 'wonders'.  Belief in the miraculous, either as a real supernatural event, or a simple way in which a divine presence can be represented and a message communicated is of great significance to many denominations of the Christian church.

In a further tweet, Prof. Roberts stated ‘All religions are irrational’ – which is interesting given Humanists UK’s stated aim of increasing tolerance between religious and non-religious people.  The wording of the initial tweet obviously attempts question whether anyone ‘really believes’ – setting up an obvious question as to whether someone stating such beliefs ‘really’ believes them or is just claiming it.  This is, of course, a relatively simple rhetorical device – and one which some Christians might well find to be offense since it questions the truthfulness of the respondent – especially since the tweet is itself a response to a statement by a religious institution regarding an event described in Christian scripture.  There is a repeated trope online that Twitter (and social media in general) ‘isn’t a place for nuance’ – and this is just one example of how an absence of nuance, and a tendency towards pithy summaries which do not engage with known facts, can stifle discussion. 

In response I posted, indirectly, a brief summary highlighting some of the key points regarding miracles in Christian belief – and since writing on miracles proves a large section of the evidence used in my thesis this post presents key points around Christian belief in miracles in previous societies in the West which provide a large amount of context for modern beliefs. 

As discussed above – Augustine of Hippo was of the opinion that all miracles were inherently bound up in the miracle of creation and were not contrary to the laws of nature - but rather to what humans know of nature.  From City of God -

'For how can an event be contrary to nature when it happens by the will of God, since the will of the great creator assuredly is the nature of every created thing?  A portent therefore does not occur contrary to nature but contrary to what is known of nature.' - St Augustine of Hippo, De Civitate Dei 21. 8.

He argued that nature was filled with miraculous things (a statement found in one of his letters).  By the twelfth century discussion of miracles had developed from this – rather than distinguishing between daily miracles and more unusual events both of which were firmly bound up in the single miracle of creation, instead miracle has come to refer only to the later.  Anselm's distinction between miracle, human action, and natural process becomes the more common, and is developed, directly and indirectly, further by other authors.  

Caesarius of Heisterbach, writing in his Dialogus miraculorum – a set of over 700 miracle tales set out of as a dialogue between a monk and a novice – summarizes this view -   “We call a miracle that which is done contrary to the usual course of nature and amazes us..”  Augustine’s ‘hidden causes’ which he discussed in City of God, which included the prayers of the saints, were still central to this view.  By the thirteenth century the discussion of miracles had developed further and had, to an extent, reincorporated a modified version of Augustine of Hippo’s ‘daily miracles’.  Thomas Aquinas writing in his work Summa contra gentiles divided miracles into three categories –

‘These works that are done by God outside the usual order assigned to things are wont to be called miracles: because we are astonished (admiramur) at a thing when we see an effect without knowing the cause. And since at times one and the same cause is known to some and unknown to others, it happens that of several who see an effect, some are astonished and some not: thus an astronomer is not astonished when he sees an eclipse of the sun, for he knows the cause; whereas one who is ignorant of this science must needs wonder, since he knows not the cause. Wherefore it is wonderful to the latter but not to the former. Accordingly a thing is wonderful simply, when its cause is hidden simply: and this is what we mean by a miracle: something, to wit, that is wonderful in itself and not only in respect of this person or that. Now God is the cause which is hidden to every man simply: for we have proved above that in this state of life no man can comprehend Him by his intellect. Therefore properly speaking miracles are works done by God outside the order usually observed in things.

Of these miracles there are various degrees and orders. The highest degree in miracles comprises those works wherein something is done by God, that nature can never do: for instance, that two bodies occupy the same place, that the sun recede or stand still, that the sea be divided and make way to passers by. Among these there is a certain order: for the greater the work done by God, and the further it is removed from the capability of nature, the greater the miracle: thus it is a greater miracle that the sun recede, than that the waters be divided.

The second degree in miracles belongs to those whereby God does something that nature can do, but not in the same order: thus it is a work of nature that an animal live, see and walk: but that an animal live after being dead, see after being blind, walk after being lame, this nature cannot do, but God does these things sometimes by a miracle. Among these miracles also, there are degrees, according as the thing done is further removed from the faculty of nature.

The third degree of miracles is when God does what is wont to be done by the operation of nature, but without the operation of the natural principles: for instance when by the power of God a man is cured of a fever that nature is able to cure; or when it rains without the operation of the principles of nature.’

A concise summary of medieval theological perspectives on miracles can be found in Chapter 1 of Miracles in the Medieval Mind by Benedicta Ward.

Many modern theologians are of the view that God normally operates through natural principles – ensuring things happen by bending normal operations in answer to the prayers of an individual – be that the intercession of a saint in heaven on behalf of a human on earth, or directly by an individual’s prayer.  It is worth noting that much of the most public discussion on miracles surrounds either the Roman Catholic or charismatic/Pentecostal evangelical churches – and these two positions far from encompass the spectrum of Christian belief in the modern era – just as they have never done so in the past.  As has been stated on multiple occasions by any number of medievalists – medieval people did not share a single brain and the society in the Middle Ages did not consist of monolithic uniform cultures where all people believed the same things.   The evidence does however suggest that in the Latin Christian West there was a uniform belief in miracles as exclusively supernatural events, or as metaphorical descriptions – both thoughts pervaded society with little conflict in general. 

From an academic perspective the examination of miracle literature has long since moved beyond the objective discussion of whether or not the events recorded did in fact happen as recorded, or in a similar way, or not at all.  Instead, following the work of Peter Brown, anthropologists and historians have examined what knowledge can be gained of the society which produced each set of miracle literature – what they tell us about how people lived and thought.  As Brown argues it is not so much a question of if the miracle happened but of what function the miracle and its associated literature served in the society in question. As discussed above the miracles of Jesus serve as a way of communicating central beliefs around both the history person of Jesus and of his nature as Messiah.  Miracles of saints were attestations of God's continued presence and care for creation.  For Augustine of Hippo all of this was part of creation - obscured from human sight - and capable of creating awe and wonder.  Later theologians would expand on this - viewing miracles as where extremely unlikely occurrences happen and where rational explanations are explored.  As Thomas Aquinas notes what is miraculous to one may be mundane - which is unsurprising since human cultures - will bound together by shared mores and norms are made up of individuals capable of reason and agency.  It it unfortunate to dismiss in this way something which is of significance to a religion which contains multiple beliefs on such matters but for all whom some fundamental views are of central important.   In attempting to stimulate inter-faith dialogue it is perhaps unwise to seemingly ridicule some of the central beliefs of an individual faith - to say nothing of the broader concept itself which is not unique to Christianity - and can be found in many other religions.  Belief in the miraculous as a sign of a connection with something 'beyond' this world has been and remains and significant part of many faiths, and as an idea appeals to many even those who generally disavow any particular religious belief.  Whether the reality of a miracle can be proven empirically is in some ways irrelevant - the belief shapes people's approach even at a subconscious level.  Humans are by their nature complex both individually and collectively.  And while some may say that such a belief as that in miracles is irrational and not empirically evidenced - many individuals would present arguments which are rational to the individual.  Belief is complicated and, frankly, messy, but in the view of some, our capacity for belief, including self-delusion is one of the things which makes us humans.  Belief in miracles is not dead, and is unlikely to disappear, perhaps since it is linked to another fundamental human emotion - that of hope.

To summarize – disregarding the question of ‘real belief’ as opposed to some form of ‘false belief’ since the distinction is in some ways designed to question the integrity with which someone presents their viewpoint – we can firmly say not only that Christians have and continue to believe in miraculous events – varying from supernatural experiences to rainfall and sunshine, to signs and visions – both as real events and as metaphors.  The two positions are not antithetical, and many denominations of the church hold variant views of the miraculous.  To question whether some people ‘really believe’ is to disregard the clear evidence that the belief in miracles has motived actions on the part of Christians, from prayers to pilgrimage, since its earliest history.  It can be see in medieval theological dialogue – it can be seen in miracle literature – and it can be seen today in the pilgrims arriving at Lourdes, Compostella, the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, or the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, hoping to experience an encounter with God and in many cases healing be it physical, psychological, or spiritual.   

Professor Roberts, while dismissing anecdotal evidence, would go on to state in another reply - 

But it seems a lot of them are mistaking generosity for a miracle. Perhaps that’s right. Miracles are wonderful, chance occurrences; awesome biological phenomena; and human kindnesses. I can believe in such miracles.

— Prof Alice Roberts💙 (@theAliceRoberts) September 30, 2018

The interesting point here is the idea of 'chance occurrences' being miraculous is perfectly in line with one of the forms of miracle accepted and believe by the vast majority of Christians, whether they believe that miracles still happen or believe that the gift of miracles was something reserved only for the Apostles and those who directly followed Jesus at the foundation of the faith.  It is worth noting that, based on my own interactions, some of the most sceptical people I have ever met when it comes to the question of miracles have in fact been Christians - including members of well established denominations.  It is also possible to argue that the dismissal of anecdotal evidence - as Roberts does, arguing that there is no objective evidence beyond anecdote - could be countered via arguments involving an adaptation of the observer effect - e.g. that observation without interaction is impossible and whatever you observe you cause of change.  

The examples Roberts uses are simply more examples of what Augustine called the daily miracles.  They still excite wonder - they are signs.  The difference here is around the fundamental belief as to what lies behind them - the 'hidden causes' of Augustine's position.   So in this sense there is perhaps common ground which may enable dialogue and understanding, without one side labelling the other to be 'irrational', with a suggestion that those who belong to it are not capable of reason.  And for me, that sliver of overlap, is grounds for hope. 

"The one thing (the one thing) 

We're all waiting for (we're all waiting for) 

Is peace on earth (peace on earth) 

And an end to war (an end to war) 

It's a miracle we need, the miracle 

The miracle 

Peace on earth and end to war today 


That time will come one day you'll see 

When we can all be friends..." - Queen. The Miracle 

Labels:

Popular Posts