Can All Genuine Miracles Be Explained by Science at a Later Time?

The question of whether all genuine miracles can be explained by science at a later time remains a deeply controversial and intriguing one. Miracles are often seen as inexplicable phenomena that point directly to divine intervention, while others argue that science can ultimately provide an explanation for any event, no matter how extraordinary.

Belief and Explanation

The validity of a miracle is not merely a matter of scientific explanation. As David Hume observes, “Explainability is in the eye of the beholder.” He suggests that whether you choose to believe that something can be explained or not is a matter of individual belief. If you believe in the miracles of faith, you may dismiss scientific explanations, while those who rely on science may reject the very existence of miracles.

The choice of belief, according to Hume, confines us to a future where our chosen beliefs remain true. However, this belief system can only be challenged in times of existential crisis. Ultimately, the reassessment of one's beliefs is necessary if evidence emerges that contradicts what was previously held true.

The Limits of Science

No miracle can be "explained by science" because science operates within the framework of the natural world. According to Hume, “science cannot explain that which does not exist.” This presupposes that if a miracle does occur, it is in the realm of the supernatural and therefore beyond the analytical tools of science.

Furthermore, the absence of a scientific explanation does not mean the event in question was miraculous. As Hume argues, just because something cannot be explained scientifically, “DOES NOT MEAN that it was miraculous.” Instead, it means that the scientific method has not yet uncovered the underlying mechanism.

A Critique of Miracles

David Hume's famous essay "Of Miracles" in An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding offers a profound critique of the concept of miracles. Hume's central argument is that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony is of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact it attempts to establish.

"The plain consequence is and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force which remains after deducting the inferior."

Hume's argument suggests that when confronted with the claim of a miracle, we must weigh the evidence objectively. If the belief that someone is deceiving us or being deceived is more miraculous than the event itself, we should reject the miracle. Hume's logical framework compels us to choose between the greater miracle of a lie or the less miraculous but scientifically plausible event.

Impossible Miracles and Scientific Imagination

There are certain miracles that simply cannot be tested because they have never been observed or performed. Common miracles that cannot be tested include:

Changing water into wine Walking on water Multiplying loaves of bread and fish with a prayer to feed hungry multitudes Healing the terminally ill with a word or touch Raising the dead

Since these events have never been observed or scientifically verified, they cannot be subjected to the rigorous testing required by the scientific method. The inability to test these claims does not make them any less miraculous, but it does limit their scientific plausibility.

Conclusion

The question of whether all genuine miracles can be explained by science at a later time remains a matter of intense debate. While science strives to explain the natural world, it cannot and may never explain the supernatural. The belief in miracles is deeply rooted in faith, and this faith can be challenged only when new evidence emerges or when the current belief system is scrutinized under a rational and empirical lens. Until then, the miraculous and the scientific remain distinct, each operating in its own realm of explanation and understanding.