奇迹。嗯。我不觉得它们或它们的证据令人信服。我更喜欢道金斯这样的人写的东西。他的新书《现实的魔力》总结了自《自私的基因》以来他所写的大部分内容。奇迹在他的清单上排得非常靠后——这也应该排在后面。也许宇宙是一个相当沉闷的地方。但是，作为一个现实主义者，我觉得这多少有点安慰。只有我，你看。我想我读得太多了。 And I'm not talking about faith, fiction or fairy tales. I prefer science, facts and, well, reality. Miracles? Let the Pope deals with those. His arena, not mine. It seems a miracle to me that he is Pope---but that is a miracle of a different colour. Isn't it?

奇迹的本质是视角的问题。对于一个无神论者来说，奇迹必须是不自然的(违反自然法则)，因此是不可能的。然而，对有神论者来说，奇迹对上帝来说是自然的;关键在于，这对人类来说是不可能的:上帝可以做人类做不到的事情。
这是因果关系吗?奇怪的是，无神论者和有神论者会同意这一点。无神论者会说奇迹没有原因，因此不可能发生，而有神论者会说奇迹确实有原因，即上帝。
Ronald Green
"Nothing Matters - a book about nothing" (iff-Books)

Whether miracles are possible or not is not a question for the "laws of physics" or "laws of science." We cannot even prove that these so-called laws are in fact universally true, we can only show them true so far as we can test. It is much more of a question of the underlying assumption - atheists and "strong rationalists" consider miracles impossible because they assume there is nothing outside the physical, observable universe that they believe to be completely subject to certain laws, which they further believe they know completely.
A theist (like myself) does not make that set of assumptions. Recognizing that there is a God means recognizing an agent not bound by these "laws." Instances of miracles are rare because He chooses to do them rarely, but to say they are impossible is an unprovable claim. Miracles are by definition unique events and therefore not repeatable or testable. You have to get out of the lab coat of the scientist and into the cardigan of the historian, or the suit of the detective. Weigh the accounts, the testimony, and the probabilities, and make an assessment. That is all you can do.
即使是科学也没有大众想象中那么多真正的“绝对”。

I find nature to be a miracle, as beautifully and equitably divine as One gets.
=
MJA

I remember Mirugai's name and have always valued the input of that contributor to this blog. I do not believe in luck or miracles---to me, those notions are borne of superstition. Call me whatever you may, but there is something between luck and superstition---Jung's notion of synchronicity. Now that, I have some experience with. The thing about synchronicity is that it just happens. Luck and superstition seem to have nothing to do with it. It has found me, once or twice (maybe four times) in life. If you want to call me superstitious, go right ahead. But superstition defies reason. Synchronicity merely defies probability---big gap there---don't you think?

Where are the Miracles?
宇宙真的是无边无际的，除了我们自己创造和设置在我们周围的法则。
我们自己制造的这个盒子限制了我们，让我们远离真正的奇迹。
How many laws are there?
它们能被计算出来吗?
And where oh where does freedom fit in?
它不!
The miracle is outside the box,
Our own self evidence.
I found the edge of the box One day,
看了看，害怕……Slipped and fell,
And now the miracle is free,
Is,
=
MJA

有趣的讨论。我倾向于这样的观点:奇迹是很多的，但视角是有限的。
Another point: science is faith-based. My Dad & I had this discussion many times -- have we ever seen atoms, molecules, or for that matter the Earth from space? Not personally -- we take the word of others to be true (or pics/videos which w/current tech could easily be falsified.)
Similarly, science is not actually a compilation of facts -- it's a compilation of theories about observed/recorded phenomena which are subject to many flaws, most notably the flaws of the theoreticians and their framework/worldview.
为了追求“科学”，纳粹和许多美国/欧洲科学家在不情愿的受害者身上进行了最残酷的实验(纳粹进行了绝育和许多卑鄙的手术，加上我们知道的塔斯基吉实验和现在的危地马拉性传播疾病实验)。今天，许多科学在动物身上继续着这些不情愿的实践，从基因实验到移植和器官种植，到杂交、活体解剖和大脑实验)。
Worldview is a key factor for all these developments.
虽然我喜欢许多科学的发展，但我希望集体选择不追求各种技术，这些技术就像潜在邪恶结果的“潘多拉盒子”——核武器、转基因食品(大规模)和生物战争(病毒和杀手细菌)是我最糟糕的科学追求。
Personally, I think that the products of billions of years of evolution are miraculous. I know of no evidence to show that evolution is the sole factor in current human development (ie could aliens have intervened? Etc.) Also I've experienced psychic & spiritual phenomena which I can't explain scientifically.
Last point: science requires repeatable processes for verification -- it uses deductive reasoning to figure things out. However, the possibility of unique occurrences and singularities which can't be repeated are challenging for our science of today to handle. No ways to test or repeat. Similarly, research can be skewed by manipulating the participants, the factors, or locations. In many studies, the results are hidden inside the margin of error.
So if molecules are galaxies, if animals have souls, if the Earth &/or Sun are conscious living creatures, if water is sentient, etc -- all this and more are phenomena that science can't answer today. Same w/divine concepts; using science to tackle them is like using a speedometer to measure someone's emotions. Wrong machine, wrong device, and ultimately wrong approach.
rekzkarz.com
ps: After I submitted this comment, the machine couldn't accept my post bc my homepage listed didn't have http in front. What a great analogy for how framing affects what we can accept as input!! A little less strict parameters on the input data @ more flexibility on the results -- but some data don't fit our requirements.

Mirugai:谢谢你的回复。最终，断言上帝存在或不存在，都是对信仰的断言。这两种立场都不能排除理性怀疑而得到证实。因此，这就变成了一个权衡证据并赋予Alvin Plantinga所谓的“有根据的”信念的问题。我相信上帝的证据来自四个方面:1)个人的经验，这是无可否认的，因为很多人都有个人的经验;2)其他信徒的见证，有相似的弱点，但也有众的力量;3)宇宙本身，它的存在表明在它本身之外有某种第一因，因为我不认为有这样一种无因的结果;4)最重要的是，基督复活的证据，作为一名历史学家，经过仔细的研究，我发现这非常令人信服。这可能不能说服所有人，但这已经足够说服我了。
当我们认为奇迹是违反物理或科学“定律”的事件时，我们可能会想，为什么会有这样的“定律”，或者为什么我们期望会有这样的“定律”。宇宙运行的“法则”并不存在内在的要求。然而，它恰好拥有它们，而我们恰好能够发现它们。事实上，事实证明，我们可以使用数学，这是我们有限头脑的一项发明，来探索它们。为什么会这样呢?应该这样吗?我想说的是，我们生活在一个宇宙中，我们可以说，运行在一套非常一致的规则上，这些规则对我们来说是可以理解的，可以被我们发现甚至操纵。科学的全部存在都依赖于这一事实。然而，科学无法回答为什么会这样。这是哲学和/或神学的问题。
In my view, this is so because God made this universe for us (and maybe others to, but for us certainly). Further, he is a God of order, so the universe does have consistent rules - and I think it was this underlying belief that explains why true science developed in the West rather than elsewhere. And he works through them most of the time because they are his rules, after all - they would be pointless if he violated them all the time. It is his nature to work out of sight, or as Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, to allow his creation to push him out of the world and onto the cross. This is the paradox of at least the Christian faith - an event like the crucifixion, which to any observer at the time would have seemed like the most godless possible, was in fact God acting in great power (George L. Murphy develops this thought much further in "The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross"). I think many of my fellow believers don't thoroughly consider what this means about the nature of God.
Several posts here state that we believe in miracles because we want to, because we need that comfort of "knowing" we are more than just dust, that there is a higher power looking out for us, etc. The question I would pose is: why do we want that? Why do we need it? If this world is all there is, and the way it runs is the way it has always run, and therefore it is the only reality any human has ever known, why do we imagine something else? There are fish that live in caves, that never know anything but darkness, that have no reference point for anything but total darkness, in fact they don't even have eyes. We're like cave fish somehow dreaming of light. Why?

To Light
How to see a miracle:
If you haven't seen a miracle, you don't need new glasses or even an eye exam. Simply try removing all of the uncertainties of theories and faiths that obstruct you vision or view.
一旦不确定性消除，真实之光的奇迹就会照进来，同样地从你身上反射出来。
Let there be light!
Clearly or Truly yours,
=
MJA

I left a comment on one of Jon Horvitz's posts from brain, mind and other things. The post was allied with the God notion and being Jewish, Christian or otherwise. I stated that recent emotional stress (my wife's illness) had evoked a memory and an epiphany regarding God, belief, miracles and so on. I opined that people survive catastrophic illness, not because they believe in the power of an omnipotent God and Its benevolence towards those who are faithful and devoted, but because they believe in THEIR ability to overcome their illness. This allies with Arthur Schopenhauer and another philosopher, Fred---whose last name I can never recall how to spell (sounds like: neet-che). Both Art and Fred placed emphasis on human will.
Larry Dossey has written about such things as the power of prayer. Others, including anthropologists and the like, have discussed shamanism and all manner of mind-over-matter theories and arguments. As I mentioned in my comment on Jon Horvitz' post, I think Dr. Norman Vincent Peale wrote eloquently on The Power of Positive Thinking. But, Dr. Peale was foremost a cleric. And, I have to at least infer that he was in the corner of the omnipotent, benevolent God who rewards devotion. In this sense, Peale was fulfilling his anointed role. As for the rest, I just do not think so. We cannot measure these things, so there will always be the faithful and the faithless; believers and skeptics. Thanksgiving is coming up---have some turkey, dressing and a beer if you want to. Who knows: If you pray hard enough, your heartburn might go away. Or, you could take Prilosec---before you oink out. That's what I would do---if I planned to oink out.

mirugai: at some point it does in fact come down to faith. I think Fred got at something important as well...we live in a universe of order, and have focused on the laws of that order to the point that we have mostly ceased to wonder why there should be such things in the first place. I think pre-scientific people, faced with this same reality of a universe of order, focused more on why it should be so. This drives a lot of the change in perception.
Looking at Paul van Pelt's point above as well, positive thinking may in fact have something to do with healing-related "miracles" in some cases. Other times, miracles happen to people who don't believe and aren't at all expecting it. So another case. And vice versa: Nitszche's belief in his own superiority did not prevent him from going nuts. And then there are miracles that have nothing to do with health at all.
I think one reason we struggle with miracles is that we try to consider them as phenomena. As such, their inconsistency is hard to take. If we look at them not as mere physical events, but as the work of a Person, we get past that hurdle. The down side, I suppose, is that they are no longer a category of things that can be confirmed or denied all together. The up side is that each report can now be taken on its own evidence, without getting all wrapped up over violations of the "laws" of the universe. One should not credit every report of a miracle one hears (I certainly don't), but honest investigation of them would require at least a temporary willing suspension of disbelief.

Rather than faith,
Miracles come down to a point of absolute truth.
A truth so infinite,
It is immeasurable.
Nature is this Way,
=
MJA