It is largely assumed that miracles are inherently unscientific. But let's examine the premise for this belief. Science, it is said, shows us a predictable universe, one that follows uniform laws and rhythms. Miracles, by definition, are an aberration of those laws, a suspending of the norms of nature, and therefore are improbable if not impossible.
The secular philosopher David Hume wrote in his Essay on Miracles
that there are two questions to be answered: "Do miracles occur?" and
"Is Nature absolutely uniform?" Because he answers yes to the latter
question, he answers no to the first one. But, as C. S. Lewis points
out, Hume has engaged in philosophical sleight of hand for the two
questions are the same one. By asking is miracles occur you are simply
asking in another way if nature is always absolutely uniform. So, the
real question we have to wrestle with is the one of nature's uniformity.
How do we know that the universe follows a uniform pattern of behavior?
Our first response tends to be: by experience or by observation. But the truth is all we can say by experience and observation is that during the period of time that we have observed nature, we have observed her to behave is such and such a way. Even the longest periods of observation-- decades for many things, centuries for a few things-- is a relatively short period of time in light of the relative age of the universe. For scientists who believe in an earth that existed millions of years before mankind, even the short history of humanity (6000 years at our best guess?) is not enough to to answer the question of nature's uniformity by experience alone. In fact, when we try to say that we believe in Nature's uniformity because of our observation and experience, we are simply saying that we believe that the patterns we have observed are ones we believe to have been around before our observation and experience and will continue even beyond our observation and experience. And you would officially be in a circular argument.
Our second response is that we wish it to be so. This, of course, is irrational. And yet, highly practical. We couldn't live day to day if we did not count on some level of predictability or reliability in nature. Life would be disastrous. And since it is beyond our control anyway, we assume that things will continue tomorrow as they have today, and that tends to work out in general. But such an answer cannot be enough.
Our third and most honest response is that science depends on a predictable universe and if we have up the sense of uniformity and order in nature we would lose science. We are now getting closer for we are admitting that science is predicated on a kind of faith: a faith in the general orderliness of the universe.
But what sort of belief system allows for that conviction? For the pure Naturalist-- the one who believes Nature is all there is, that there is no God, no Spirit, no Force, no Mind-- he is in a bind. The Naturalist is forced to admit that since there is no guiding Force or Mind, his own "deepest convictions are merely the byproducts of an irrational process" and therefore cannot be trusted. A person's convictions-- about the uniformity of the universe or anything else-- is simply a fact about that person (like the color of his hair) and has no grounds for treating his conviction as more valid or reasonable than anyone else's. (C. S. Lewis in Miracles wrote on this in Chapter 13). The Supernaturalist-- one who believes in a Rational MInd/Force beyond nature-- has the best grounds for accepting the uniformity of nature. He believes there is a great rational force that has set the universe in motion and its motion follows a sense of rationality for He is rational. "Men became scientific because the expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator" (Lewis).
The "catch', however, is that the same grounds that lead you to accept a rational, uniform universe allows leaves you defenseless against the possibility of miracles. For if there is a God-- a rational, creative Being-- then we can expect the universe to be orderly; but we must also admit that if that God chose to break into His creation He could.
What sort of God would break into His creation? Here is where we turn away from what science alone can tell us and ask what religion tells us. The bulk of religion chronicles man's search for God. But it is the Jewish-Christian story that begins with God's search for mankind. "Adam, where are you?" God said in the beginning of our story. For the Jew and the Christian, God has always broken into time and space. And those occasions are often called "miracles". For the Christian, the ultimate invasion of God into His world is in the person of Jesus Christ. Through Him we see the most dramatic miracles: the virgin birth, the incarnation itself, the resurrection.
By no means does science prove God or miracles. But neither does science preclude it. Furthermore, because science itself needs to believe in an orderly universe, it admits the possibility of a "God". But by admitting the possibility of a "God", it must admit the possibility of miracles. So, our answer to Hume's questions are yes, miracles can occur; and, yes, the universe is generally almost always uniform. It is my view that the Christian story best reconciles these questions. And it does so it a breathtakingly beautiful way.
[NOTE: I am indebted to Chapter 13 of C. S. Lewis' Miracles for the content of this post. If you are intrigued, I recommend his book for further reading. You can also listen to my recent sermon on "Miracles and the Christian" HERE.]