What is the scientific definition of "Miracle"

[harshgoel1975]

What is the scientific definition of "Miracle" - Language has definition ( Noun ) : a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency

 

Can we consider that as matter of fact "Miracle" doesn't exist in science only "Eureka" exist ? then what will happen to our saints....

[John Cuthber]

What happened to our Saints is that people made up stories about them.

[ajb]

There is no scientific definition of a miracle. The definition you gave is the one that people would commonly understand as a miracle.

 

However, there is no scientific evidence that miracles happen. Thus, scientists have not really thought too hard about what should be the definition. Remember, just because we cannot explain some phenomena right now does not mean that we have to invoke god. We just accept that we don't know enough yet to explain it, but remain confident that one day it will have an explanation within science.

[Phi for All]

If it can't be explained by natural laws, then by definition it's supernatural. Science deals only with natural phenomena.

 

Miracles seem to be one-off phenomena, never repeatable or predictable. To me, this is the best indicator that there are simpler, natural explanations that don't involve anything we don't already understand.

 

IOW, if we knew every influence that shaped its making and could recreate it, we could probably make Jesus' face appear on a piece of toast over and over again. Miracle not needed.

[harshgoel1975]

God does have to keep the miracles going, or no one would believe that He is real.

 

>>> good quote...so here giving directions to God.....God does have to keep the supernatural things going, or no one would believe that He is real. ... Good ...

[TheDivineFool]

A 'miracle' is a little more than 'scientifically inexplicable'. Once upon a time the motion of the planets were 'scientifically inexplicable'. Nobody said it was a miracle.

 

Jesus walked on water. Now that's a miracle. A miracle involves a violation of known scientific principles.

 

That's not all. It has also to be unverified. The moment a 'miraculous event' is verified it falls into the 'unexplained' category and science will work on it. This has NEVER happened. What does that say about 'miraculous events'? In case this does happen, and all attempts to explain the event fails, the event is elevated to the status of a 'true' miracle.

 

Miracles are mostly used by religions to shore up support for their veracity. And this is the fallacy of 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' and it goes like this ''We cannot explain event x with science. So, it must be God's work.'' Other more reasonable positions could be our observation is mistaken, we need to work on some of our theories, etc.

[Phi for All]

That's not all. It has also to be unverified. The moment a 'miraculous event' is verified it falls into the 'unexplained' category and science will work on it. This has NEVER happened. What does that say about 'miraculous events'? In case this does happen, and all attempts to explain the event fails, the event is elevated to the status of a 'true' miracle.

 

Actually, what's "NEVER happened" is a "true" miracle. Not once. Do you have any examples where science has given up on an attempt to explain any so-called miracle?

[TheDivineFool]

Actually, what's "NEVER happened" is a "true" miracle. Not once. Do you have any examples where science has given up on an attempt to explain any so-called miracle?

Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your inclinations, I've never come across a ''true miracle''.

 

I don't believe in religious miracles because religion appears to use them as proofs that their prophet is speaking the holy truth.

 

Isn't that odd?

 

They look for a reason to lend support to their claims. Score 1.

Then they find the stupidest reason imaginable and are so happy about it. I wish I had the facepalm emoticon.

 

Don't you think God would've presented well crafted reasons to convince us of the truth?

 

I think I've flown off on a tangent. Sorry.

[Phi for All]

I don't believe in religious miracles because religion appears to use them as proofs that their prophet is speaking the holy truth.

 

I think the word "believe" is misused when applied to both religion and science. The system by which we validate an explanation, our individual belief system, has many types of belief within it. If I believe in god(s), I do so with nothing tangible to support that belief, the god(s) aren't willing to be observed, which to me is faith. If I believe the "consciousness" lives on after the death of the body, I have a little more support (energy can't be destroyed, only changed!), but this type of belief is more wishful thinking. I want it to be true rather than really thinking it's true. The preponderance of evidence favors the when-you're-dead-you're-dead explanation.

 

The way I believe in science is more trust. I trust the explanations science offers because I know I can check everything about it, how the data was gathered, how the experiments were handled, the conclusions, the peer review, it's all out there. And I know there are thousands of people out there trying to overthrow each theory about how the natural world works. The more they're unable to refute an explanation, the more trustworthy it becomes to me.

 

So, if you think about it, believing in miracles means putting some very strong belief in something we can't possibly be sure of. Where else in our lives do we do this? Would you cross a busy street blindfolded with ear plugs, trusting that the cars will avoid hitting you?

 

I've also heard many religious people claim that believing in miracles goes against their faith. For them, trying to support faith with evidence of the existence of god(s) means your faith isn't strong enough by itself.

[John Cuthber]

Is anyone here able to rule out this as the basis for a good working definition of a miracle?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

[TheDivineFool]

@ Phi for All

 

Can you categorically state that science has not an iota of faith in it? Do they not take on faith that what has happened till now will continue to happen in the future - I forgot the name of this principle. It can be roughly stated as the "principle of regularity of nature". Science relies on induction, the specific form of induction being statistical generalization e.g. every day the sun has risen in the past. Therefore, the sun will continue to rise in the future.

 

@John Cuthber

The definition of delusion in your link is "A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary."

 

As defined, delusion is a "belief" but a miracle is an "event". If you believe in a miracle, then you may be deluded.

[Robittybob1]

@ Phi for All

 

Can you categorically state that science has not an iota of faith in it? Do they not take on faith that what has happened till now will continue to happen in the future - I forgot the name of this principle. It can be roughly stated as the "principle of regularity of nature". Science relies on induction, the specific form of induction being statistical generalization e.g. every day the sun has risen in the past. Therefore, the sun will continue to rise in the future.

 

@John Cuthber

The definition of delusion in your link is "A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary."

 

As defined, delusion is a "belief" but a miracle is an "event". If you believe in a miracle, then you may be deluded.

Have you seen a miracle then?

[TheDivineFool]

Have you seen a miracle then?

Now that you ask, I've only 'heard' of miracles. Never seen them. I have, on one occasion, been called to witness rainfall 'caused' by prayer. I didn't know what to say but I feigned wonder so as not to offend. In my mind I thought ''post hoc ergo propter hoc''. I also thought ''There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than can be dreamt of in your philosophy.''

 

While I agree that there's no scientific explanation for such miracles, I disagree that such things are IMPOSSIBLE just because science can't explain it.

[Robittybob1]

Now that you ask, I've only 'heard' of miracles. Never seen them. I have, on one occasion, been called to witness rainfall 'caused' by prayer. I didn't know what to say but I feigned wonder so as not to offend. In my mind I thought ''post hoc ergo propter hoc''. I also thought ''There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than can be dreamt of in your philosophy.''

 

While I agree that there's no scientific explanation for such miracles, I disagree that such things are IMPOSSIBLE just because science can't explain it.

So was that rain forecasted?

[TheDivineFool]

So was that rain forecasted?

Good question. No but the prayers went on for a month or so. So, weather forecast wasn't really being used by them unless they were able to make calculations as to when and where weather formations were going to arise and then move. This seems highly unlikely. Must've been one lucky coincidence. This is not really a miracle is it? Nothing the likes of Jesus rising from the dead. Anyway, the more suggestible the mind, the less the effort required to convince them.

 

For the record, I don't believe in miracles. I think the set of true miracles is an empty set. It's all hearsay and goes viral due to shock value.

 

Nevertheless, they do play an important part in religion-miracles bolster credibility of holy men and religion as a whole.

 

Scientifically, I think miracles would simply be considered as 'falsifying' evidence against a theory/hypothesis.

[Phi for All]

@ Phi for All

 

Can you categorically state that science has not an iota of faith in it? Do they not take on faith that what has happened till now will continue to happen in the future - I forgot the name of this principle. It can be roughly stated as the "principle of regularity of nature". Science relies on induction, the specific form of induction being statistical generalization e.g. every day the sun has risen in the past. Therefore, the sun will continue to rise in the future.

 

Why does anyone, when discussing science, insist on 100% proof, ironclad surety, and purity from doubt? If you learn anything here, it should be that theories are our best current explanation, subject to change when new data is presented. They represent our best knowledge, but not the best it will ever be. We learn and improve theories all the time.

 

And no, since I define faith as strong belief with nothing rational to support it, I don't think science uses faith. There are rational, scientific reasons to trust that the sun will rise tomorrow. If you know the way it works, you don't have to take it on faith.

Now that you ask, I've only 'heard' of miracles. Never seen them. I have, on one occasion, been called to witness rainfall 'caused' by prayer. I didn't know what to say but I feigned wonder so as not to offend. In my mind I thought ''post hoc ergo propter hoc''. I also thought ''There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than can be dreamt of in your philosophy.''

 

While I agree that there's no scientific explanation for such miracles, I disagree that such things are IMPOSSIBLE just because science can't explain it.

 

Hold on here. There ARE scientific explanations for "such miracles" as you describe. Can you name a miracle that science doesn't have an explanation for? Who are you agreeing with, that "there's no scientific explanation for such miracles"?

 

Protip: When you're researching miracles, try to avoid the ones where some kind of religious icon shows up on something. It's pretty trivially easy to show that the Virgin Mary in water stains on a highway overpass, or Jesus' face on toast are just pattern recognition. Medical "miracles" are even easier to refute, unless you could find an instance where something that's never happened before happened, like an amputee growing a leg back.

 

Scientifically, I think miracles would simply be considered as 'falsifying' evidence against a theory/hypothesis.

 

I don't follow this. You think a miracle supports theory? That's what "'falsifying' evidence against" means.

 

Scientifically, there are no miracles. Again, science deals with the natural world, and when you start talking about magical, physics-defying, unobserveable deities doing unpredictable and unrepeatable miracles, you're talking about the supernatural. Science can only shrug its shoulders and say, "Not my problem. Come back when there's something to test against reality."

[John Cuthber]

Have you seen a miracle then?

Has anyone?

[Strange]

Can you categorically state that science has not an iota of faith in it? Do they not take on faith that what has happened till now will continue to happen in the future

 

That isn't faith. It is pragmatism. Yes, maybe we could wake up tomorrow with two suns, a yellow sky, gravity pushing, cats barking and pigs flying. It hasn't happened yet, so there isn't much point basing plans, decisions and the scientific method on the chance it will. If it ever does, we will have to adapt, and adapt our science, to the new conditions.

[Robittybob1]

Has anyone?

Well I heard with my own ears someone say to me they have seen a miracle. So if anyone was to answer your question with "yes" you have then to consider whether you'd believe them.

Was it DivineFool who said "As defined, delusion is a "belief" but a miracle is an "event". If you believe in a miracle, then you may be deluded."

So you are no better off knowing the answer.

[Phi for All]

Well I heard with my own ears someone say to me they have seen a miracle. So if anyone was to answer your question with "yes" you have then to consider whether you'd believe them.

Was it DivineFool who said "As defined, delusion is a "belief" but a miracle is an "event". If you believe in a miracle, then you may be deluded."

So you are no better off knowing the answer.

 

That seems to give an awful amount of definitive power to people who may be deluded. Why are we letting them define what "miracle" means?

 

I look at it this way. Most so-called miracles aren't repeatable, so probability heavily favors a natural source mis-attributed to a supernatural one. I've never found anything that couldn't be explained naturally, and even if I couldn't and had to admit, "I just don't know", there's no rational reason I need to invoke a deity to explain it. In fact, historically when we've used god(s) to explain a gap in our knowledge, those gaps invariably continue to narrow until a rational reason pushes the deities out and the gap is bridged.

 

It's worked this way countless times. Science has never failed to provide the best explanation for phenomena it's equipped to deal with. "We don't know yet" seems like a much more reasonable stance than, "Goddidit!"

[John Cuthber]

Well I heard with my own ears someone say to me they have seen a miracle. So if anyone was to answer your question with "yes" you have then to consider whether you'd believe them.

Was it DivineFool who said "As defined, delusion is a "belief" but a miracle is an "event". If you believe in a miracle, then you may be deluded."

So you are no better off knowing the answer.

Hearsay isn't evidence.

[imatfaal]

Well I heard with my own ears someone say to me they have seen a miracle. So if anyone was to answer your question with "yes" you have then to consider whether you'd believe them.

Was it DivineFool who said "As defined, delusion is a "belief" but a miracle is an "event". If you believe in a miracle, then you may be deluded."

So you are no better off knowing the answer.

 

A longer version of John's answer - from a different John 160 years ago. John Stuart Mill has written extensively about miracles and their status in a modern world - his writing is superb and worth reading

 

You ask, but what if the man himself, being morally trustworthy, affirms that it is a miracle? I answer, this would in many cases convince me that he himself believed it to be one; but that would weigh for absolutely nothing with me, as it is the easiest & commonest fact in the world, especially in an unscientific state of the human mind, that people should sincerely ascribe any peculiar & remarkable power in themselves to divine gift, & any unexpected prompting of their own minds to a divine communication

 

John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XIV - The Later Letters of John Stuart Mill 1849-1873 Part I, ed. Francis E. Mineka and Dwight N. Lindley (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972)

[TheDivineFool]

@Phi for All: I'm not demanding 100% surety from science. All I'm saying is that it's not 100%. I'm sure you'll agree with that.

 

Indeed, as you say, 'faith' is probably too strong a word for science. 'Assumption' is more suited. One assumption of science is the 'principle of uniformity of nature'. Am I wrong? It says what has happened in the past will continue to happen in the future. What evidence do we have for this? What has happened in the past has continued to happen in the future. Isn't this like saying X because X? Circular logic, or simply no reason exists to support the assumption. What would you call such 'assumptions'? How does it differ from faith?

 

A miracle that would defy science is Jesus' resurrection. Surely, you cannot disagree that this is inexplicable in current scientific terms.

 

A miracle, if observed, would falsify scientific theories. For example, if a man were to levitate into the air, would it not bring into question current understanding of gravity, etc?

@Strange: I'm not saying that we should base our plans on the possibility that things will change tomorrow. All I'm saying is science doesn't claim absolute certainty about tomorrow. Not because it won't but because it can't.

@Strange: I'm not saying we should base our plans on things changing drastically tomorrow as you suggest. But I'm saying science cannot be 100% sure of tomorrow for the simple reason, it can't.

That isn't faith. It is pragmatism. Yes, maybe we could wake up tomorrow with two suns, a yellow sky, gravity pushing, cats barking and pigs flying. It hasn't happened yet, so there isn't much point basing plans, decisions and the scientific method on the chance it will. If it ever does, we will have to adapt, and adapt our science, to the new conditions.

As you say ''it hasn't happened yet'' but that doesn't mean it won't. Science cannot make any guarantees for the future. It just can't.

[Acme]

A longer version of John's answer - from a different John 160 years ago. John Stuart Mill has written extensively about miracles and their status in a modern world - his writing is superb and worth reading

 

John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XIV - The Later Letters of John Stuart Mill 1849-1873 Part I, ed. Francis E. Mineka and Dwight N. Lindley (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972)

I would add to that the superb and worth-reading writing of Bertrand Russell.

 

An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish

...The Ages of Faith, which are praised by our neo-scholastics, were the time when the clergy had things all their own way. Daily life was full of miracles wrought by saints and wizardry perpetrated by devils and necromancers. Many thousands of witches were burnt at the stake. Men's sins were punished by pestilence and famine, by earthquake, flood, and fire. And yet, strange to say, they were even more sinful than they are now-a-days. Very little was known scientifically about the world. A few learned men remembered Greek proofs that the earth is round, but most people made fun of the notion that there are antipodes. To suppose that there are human beings at the antipodes was heresy. It was generally held (though modem Catholics take a milder view) that the immense majority of mankind are damned. Dangers were held to lurk at every turn. Devils would settle on the food that monks were about to eat, and would take possession of the bodies of incautious feeders who omitted to make the sign of the Cross before each mouthful. Old-fashioned people still say "bless you" when one sneezes, but they have forgotten the reason for the custom. The reason was that people were thought to sneeze out their souls, and before their souls could get back lurking demons were apt to enter the unsouled body; but if any one said "God bless you," the demons were frightened off. ...

[Strange]

@Strange: I'm not saying we should base our plans on things changing drastically tomorrow as you suggest. But I'm saying science cannot be 100% sure of tomorrow for the simple reason, it can't.

 

As you say ''it hasn't happened yet'' but that doesn't mean it won't. Science cannot make any guarantees for the future. It just can't.

 

Quite. But science only deals with things for which we have evidence. So although that question might be interesting to philosophers, it is pretty much irrelevant to science.