Epigraph

“And when My servants ask you about Me, say: ‘I am near. I answer the prayer of the supplicant when he prays to Me. So they should hearken to Me and believe in Me, that they may follow the right way.’” (Al Quran 2:186)

Who is it that answers the prayers of the distressed when they call upon Him? Who removes their suffering? Who makes you successors in the earth? Is it another god besides God? Little notice you take! (Al Quran 27:62)

“This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us.” (1 John 5:14)

Written and collected by Zia H Shah MD, Chief Editor of the Muslim Times

The Feeding of the 5,000, also known as the “miracle of the five loaves and two fish,” is a significant event in the New Testament, recorded in all four Gospels: Matthew 14:13–21, Mark 6:31–44, Luke 9:12–17, and John 6:1–14. This miracle showcases Jesus’ compassion and divine provision, emphasizing themes of faith and abundance.

Following the death of John the Baptist, Jesus sought solitude near Bethsaida. However, large crowds followed Him, eager for His teachings and healing. Moved by compassion, Jesus healed the sick among them. As evening approached, the disciples expressed concern about the lack of food in the remote location and suggested sending the people away to find sustenance. Instead, Jesus instructed His disciples to feed the crowd. They found a boy with five barley loaves and two small fish. Jesus took the loaves and fish, gave thanks, and distributed them through His disciples to the assembled people. Miraculously, everyone ate and was satisfied, and the disciples collected twelve baskets of leftovers. Approximately 5,000 men were fed, not counting women and children, indicating the actual number of people fed was significantly higher. Bible Gateway

Did this miracle literally happen?

The Epistemic Theory of Miracles

The Epistemic Theory of Miracles posits that events deemed miraculous are not violations of natural laws but rather occurrences that surpass current human understanding of these laws. This perspective suggests that what we consider a “miracle” reflects the limitations of our knowledge rather than an actual suspension of natural order.

In this article, we examine a Christian miracle and Christian philosophers and theologians, but an analogous discussion can take place regarding some Islamic miracles and Muslim theologians and scholars.

Philosophers like Augustine of Hippo and Baruch Spinoza have proposed that events deemed miraculous are not violations of natural laws but rather occurrences that surpass current human understanding. According to this theory, what appears as a miracle is, in reality, a natural event whose causes are unknown to us. Thus, divine action is compatible with natural laws, as God’s interventions align with a more profound comprehension of nature. Wikipedia

Augustine of Hippo

Augustine (354–430 CE), an early Christian theologian and philosopher, proposed that miracles are events that, while extraordinary, do not contravene nature but our understanding of it. He stated, “A portent, therefore, happens not contrary to nature, but contrary to what we know as nature.” Maverick Philosopher

This implies that miracles are natural phenomena whose causes are unknown to us, challenging our perception rather than the actual natural order.

Baruch Spinoza

Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), a Dutch philosopher, echoed a similar sentiment in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. He argued that miracles are events whose natural causes are not understood, stating that they are “events of which the natural cause cannot be explained by a reference to any ordinary occurrence, either by us, or at any rate, by the writer and narrator of the miracle.” Maverick Philosopher

Spinoza maintained that everything in nature operates according to universal laws, and what is perceived as a miracle is simply an event beyond the current grasp of human knowledge.

Contemporary Perspectives

Modern philosophers and theologians continue to explore the epistemic theory of miracles. William Vallicella, for instance, has discussed this theory in relation to both Augustine and Spinoza, highlighting that miracles, under this view, are not violations of natural laws but rather events that challenge our understanding of these laws. Maverick Philosopher

This epistemic approach to miracles suggests that as scientific knowledge advances, events once deemed miraculous may become explainable within the framework of natural laws. It emphasizes the evolving nature of human understanding and cautions against hastily attributing unexplained phenomena to supernatural causes.

In summary, the epistemic theory of miracles, as advocated by thinkers like Augustine and Spinoza, proposes that miracles are not breaches of natural laws but reflect the current limits of human knowledge. This perspective encourages a continuous pursuit of understanding and acknowledges the dynamic relationship between observed phenomena and our interpretation of them. So based on our understanding of the laws of nature, many of us will decide if such a miracle did literally happen? Can new matter suddenly pop up in our midst? The believers may then say that it is a metaphor or a psychic phenomenon.

Let us now examine the perspective of a few modern well-known philosophers about the Epistemic Theory of Miracles:

David Bentley Hart

David Bentley Hart, a renowned philosopher and theologian, has extensively explored the nature of miracles within the Christian tradition. While he does not explicitly advocate for the Epistemic Theory of Miracles, which suggests that events perceived as miraculous are due to limitations in human understanding rather than actual violations of natural laws, Hart offers a nuanced perspective that intersects with this view.

Miracles and Natural Order

In his writings, Hart emphasizes that miracles should not be seen as arbitrary violations of natural laws but as manifestations of a deeper, divine reality that underpins the natural order. He argues that the natural world is imbued with divine presence, and what we term “miracles” are instances where this presence becomes particularly evident. This perspective aligns with the epistemic view to the extent that it challenges a rigid, mechanistic understanding of nature, suggesting that our perception of natural laws may be limited.

Critique of Materialism

Hart is a vocal critic of materialist and reductionist interpretations of reality, which often dismiss the possibility of miracles. He contends that such perspectives fail to account for the richness of human experience and the transcendent dimensions of existence. By advocating for a more expansive understanding of reality, Hart implies that events deemed miraculous may not contravene natural laws but rather reveal aspects of reality that materialism overlooks.

Engagement with Classical Theism

In works like The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss, Hart delves into classical theism, presenting God not as a being among beings but as the ground of all being. From this standpoint, miracles are not supernatural intrusions but expressions of the fundamental reality that sustains the universe. This view resonates with the epistemic theory by suggesting that what we perceive as miraculous reflects a deeper understanding of nature’s true essence.

Conclusion

While David Bentley Hart does not explicitly endorse the Epistemic Theory of Miracles, his theological and philosophical explorations offer a perspective that complements this view. By challenging materialist conceptions and emphasizing the divine foundation of reality, Hart provides a framework in which miracles are seen not as violations of natural laws but as revelations of a more profound, divinely infused natural order.

William Lane Craig

William Lane Craig, a prominent philosopher and Christian apologist, has extensively addressed the concept of miracles within theological and philosophical contexts. However, he does not specifically advocate for the Epistemic Theory of Miracles, which posits that so-called miraculous events are not violations of natural laws but rather occurrences that surpass current human understanding of these laws.

Craig’s Perspective on Miracles

Craig’s approach to miracles aligns more closely with the traditional understanding that miracles are actual interventions by God that may supersede natural laws. He has engaged in debates and discussions defending the plausibility of miracles, particularly focusing on the resurrection of Jesus Christ as a historical event. In his critique of David Hume’s argument against miracles, Craig employs probabilistic reasoning, utilizing Bayes’ Theorem to assess the likelihood of miraculous events. This method evaluates the probability of an event occurring based on prior knowledge and evidence, allowing for a rational assessment of miracle claims. Secular Frontier

Distinction from the Epistemic Theory

The Epistemic Theory of Miracles, associated with philosophers like Augustine of Hippo and Baruch Spinoza, suggests that events perceived as miracles are not actual violations of natural laws but rather reflect the limitations of human understanding. According to this view, a miracle is an event that does not align with our current knowledge of nature, implying that with complete understanding, such events would be seen as natural occurrences. Wikipedia

In contrast, Craig maintains that miracles can be genuine divine interventions that may not be explicable by natural laws, even with complete scientific understanding. His defense of miracles involves arguing for their possibility and actual occurrence, particularly within the context of Christian theology.

Conclusion

While William Lane Craig has extensively defended the plausibility and historicity of miracles, his perspective does not align with the Epistemic Theory of Miracles. Instead, Craig upholds the view that miracles are genuine divine interventions that may transcend natural laws, a stance that differs from the epistemic interpretation of miraculous events as merely beyond current human understanding.

Richard Swinburne

Richard Swinburne, a distinguished philosopher of religion, has extensively examined the concept of miracles, particularly in his work The Concept of Miracle (1970). However, there is no prominent association between Swinburne and the Epistemic Theory of Miracles, a perspective primarily linked to thinkers like Augustine of Hippo and Baruch Spinoza.

Swinburne’s Definition of Miracles

Swinburne defines a miracle as “a violation of a law of Nature by a god, that is, a very powerful rational being who is not a material object.” This definition aligns with the traditional understanding of miracles as events that contravene natural laws through divine intervention. Swinburne’s approach contrasts with the epistemic theory, which interprets miracles as events that appear miraculous due to the limitations of human understanding rather than actual violations of natural laws.

Assessment of Evidence for Miracles

In his analysis, Swinburne explores the possibility of establishing historical evidence for miracles. He argues that, under certain conditions, it is feasible to have strong historical evidence supporting the occurrence of miracles. This stance involves evaluating the reliability of witnesses, the context of the events, and the coherence of miracle claims with existing knowledge. Swinburne’s methodology emphasizes a rigorous assessment of evidence, differing from the epistemic perspective that attributes miraculous interpretations to gaps in human knowledge.

Conclusion

While Richard Swinburne has made significant contributions to the philosophical understanding of miracles, his views do not align with the Epistemic Theory of Miracles. Instead, Swinburne upholds a traditional view, considering miracles as genuine violations of natural laws facilitated by divine agency, and advocates for the possibility of substantiating such events through historical evidence.

Philip Clayton

Philip Clayton, a distinguished philosopher and theologian, has extensively explored the interplay between science and religion, particularly focusing on concepts such as emergence and divine action. While he does not explicitly advocate for the Epistemic Theory of Miracles, which posits that events perceived as miraculous are due to limitations in human understanding rather than actual violations of natural laws, his work offers valuable insights into understanding miracles within the framework of natural processes.

Emergence and Divine Action

In his book God and Contemporary Science, Clayton examines how divine action can be understood in a scientifically coherent manner. He proposes that God’s interaction with the world operates through emergent processes, where complex systems exhibit properties not reducible to their constituent parts. This perspective suggests that divine action does not contravene natural laws but works within the natural order, aligning with the epistemic view that miracles are events beyond current human comprehension rather than violations of nature.

Panentheism and Miracles

Clayton advocates for a panentheistic view, positing that God is both immanent within the universe and transcends it. This framework allows for understanding miracles as expressions of the divine presence permeating natural processes. In this context, miracles are not supernatural interruptions but manifestations of the deeper reality of God’s continuous involvement in the world, resonating with the epistemic theory’s emphasis on the limitations of human understanding.

Integration of Science and Theology

Throughout his work, Clayton emphasizes the importance of integrating scientific knowledge with theological concepts. He argues that a comprehensive understanding of miracles requires acknowledging the evolving nature of scientific explanations and the depth of theological insights. This integrative approach aligns with the epistemic theory by recognizing that what may be deemed miraculous often reflects the current limits of scientific understanding.

Conclusion

While Philip Clayton does not explicitly endorse the Epistemic Theory of Miracles, his explorations of emergence, divine action, and the integration of science and theology provide a nuanced perspective. By framing divine action within natural processes and emphasizing the evolving nature of human understanding, Clayton’s work offers valuable insights into interpreting miracles in a manner consistent with both scientific inquiry and theological reflection.

Robert J. Russell

Robert John Russell is founder and Director of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (CTNS). He is also the Ian G. Barbour Professor of Theology and Science in Residence at the Graduate Theological Union (GTU).^[1]

He has extensively explored the relationship between divine action and natural laws. While he does not explicitly advocate for the Epistemic Theory of Miracles, which posits that events perceived as miraculous are due to limitations in human understanding rather than actual violations of natural laws, his work offers a nuanced perspective on how divine action can be understood within the framework of contemporary science.

Non-Interventionist Objective Divine Action (NIODA)

Russell proposes the concept of Non-Interventionist Objective Divine Action (NIODA), suggesting that God can act within the natural order without contravening its laws. This perspective posits that divine action operates through natural processes, aligning with the inherent capacities of creation. For instance, God might influence events at the quantum level, where indeterminacy allows for divine input without disrupting established physical laws. JSTOR

Divine Action and Modern Science

In his work, Russell examines how divine action can be understood in a scientifically coherent manner. He differentiates between general divine action (God’s sustaining presence in the natural order) and special divine action (specific interventions). Russell argues that while God’s general action aligns with natural laws, special divine actions are not violations but rather instances where divine purposes are realized through natural processes. JSTOR

Integration of Science and Theology

Russell emphasizes the importance of integrating scientific knowledge with theological concepts. He argues that a comprehensive understanding of miracles requires acknowledging the evolving nature of scientific explanations and the depth of theological insights. This integrative approach aligns with the epistemic theory by recognizing that what may be deemed miraculous often reflects the current limits of scientific understanding.

Conclusion

While Robert J. Russell does not explicitly endorse the Epistemic Theory of Miracles, his explorations of divine action and the integration of science and theology provide a nuanced perspective. By framing divine action within natural processes and emphasizing the evolving nature of human understanding, Russell’s work offers valuable insights into interpreting miracles in a manner consistent with both scientific inquiry and theological reflection.

Epilogue:

Theistic evolution reconciles religious beliefs with scientific theories of evolution, asserting that God creates life through evolutionary processes. This perspective maintains that divine action is embedded within the natural order, with God’s guidance operating through natural mechanisms like genetic variation and natural selection. Consequently, divine interaction does not disrupt natural laws but fulfills divine purposes through them. Wikipedia

Likewise, our understanding of the Epistemic Theory of Miracles ultimately dictates our understanding of our prayers, miracles, and how God guided religious history in the times of the prophets in recent millennia and biological evolution over the millions of years.

Study of miracles also yields that some modern Muslims may have more in common with a few Christian philosophers in their emphasis on the laws of nature than their fellow Muslims, who may have nebulous ideas about miracles.

The concept of Epistemic Theory of Miracles may eventually lead to more rational understanding of events leading up to the resurrection of Jesus on Easter Sunday and the sacrament of Eucharist.

There is a type of miracle or prayer we can be certain that is never granted. An amputee can have a good prosthesis but his or her limb never grows back.

Additional reading and videos:

How could God guide evolution?