When I decided to write about miracles (mostly to make up my mind), I was struck that ordinary people do not talk about if you have witnessed a miracle, or whether this or that cure is miraculous, but simply question: Do you believe in miracles? Common sense places miraculous, not evidence, or testimony, but on beliefs. They should not be miracles, people think, something that happens at the sight of all, but rather in what is believed or not.
Miracles, by their wonderful traits, may be the subject of superstitions, and even a business opportunity. But as an object of reflection is a problem discussed seriously, read the entry that you spend the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [ link]. Nor is it necessary to emphasize the importance that the miracle is to Christianity. On the causes of saints, is relevant signorum fame (the opinion of the faithful graces and favors received), and all Catholic theology is based on two miraculous events: the virgin birth , and resurrection. So it is a matter which requires circumspection.
unsurpassed definition of miracle or wonderful fact is that of St. Thomas (S.Th. 1, 110, to .4): aliquid esse dicitura miraculum, praeter quod fit totius naturae ordinem creatae (a miracle is what occurs outside the order of all created nature). From here the philosophers discussed the fact praeter naturae ordinem (ie, "outside the natural laws.") In these terms, are possible and credible miracles?
It seems instructive that we overlook the variant of the classic definition offered by the English apologist CS Lewis, specifically from his book Miracles (1947): I use the word Miracle to mean an Interference with Nature by supernatural power ("I use the word miracle to express an interference with nature of supernatural power ") [Harper Collins ]. A miracle, to Lewis, is a supernatural interference . Thus leads us to his apologetic purpose, which is to argue that, in fact, is ordinary supernatural, and that such interference can occur in our world.
is curious word interference. According to Academy dictionary, Castilian is an English loan [ DRAE ], which took the average Frenchman enterferer , and ultimately from Latin FERir (hitting, wound). Therefore, in the mind of Lewis, the miracle is like a wound, a violence in nature. A humorous illustration of the miraculous taken in this regard is the Bill Murray movie "Groundhog Day" ( Groundhog Day, 1993), when the days do not happen, but the same day repeated over and over again each morning, when the protagonist wakes up.
There is no difficulty in affirming that God is everywhere , or as St. Thomas onmibus Deus est in rebus ... Quando non solum esse incipiunt cousin, sed esse quandiu in conservatur (S.Th. 1. Q.8, 1), illustrating theory with a beautiful image: sicut in aere causatur lumen a sole quandiu illuminatus manet aer ( "as light as the sun causes the air while the air remains illuminated.") But that supernatural presence, bearing, "interferes miraculously at any time?
I can think of two objections. The first lies in a limitation on our ability to observe (The uncertainty principle that Lewis mentioned it). supernatural can not manifest in nature rather than natural (hence the Baby Jesus in the eyes of a child shepherds.) It is inconceivable supernatural interference in the natural, they are dimensions irreconcilable. From our perspective of individuals enrolled in nature (like fish in water) can not recognize supernatural interference. At this point, I am aware that Lewis argued that mental phenomena are supernatural , a view that seems highly questionable, with that would be solved for him the ordinary interference of the supernatural in the natural. But the fact that the mental is not reducible to the material, does not follow that it is supernatural mental. CS Lewis has an idea of \u200b\u200bthe supernatural unfounded (in my opinion because it confuses the natural and material: matter of course, but not all of nature is material).
If we now turn to Aquinas, we find that the real problem of definition: fit quod praeter naturae ordinem totius lies in its first two words: quod fit, which is made or occurs. There is a fiat supernatural that appears in nature (and therefore is not appropriate to speak of a "creative moment": the creative act, the fiat lux , does not adhere to the natural sequence). If natural laws were interrupted by supernatural interference (praeter ordinem naturae ), this fact miracle could not be recognized by observers as we are natural.
The second objection to the possibility of miracles could still call Fermi paradox [wiki ]: whether the existence of aliens is just as likely, where are they? Somehow aliens are also miraculous, but I want to refer epistemological order here: whether miracles are possible, where are they? The proliferation of saints' causes has led to the proliferation also the testimonies of miraculous healings . But in fact it is healing that are not explicable in the light of present medical science, so the experts in these processes rely on the standard formula: "scientifically inexplicable healing " (a doctor never assert the existence of a miracle). We therefore find that the miracles, defined as acts that violate the order of nature, we are not displayed . What remains, then?
With a bit of irony, I say believe in miracles ... but not the definition of St. Thomas. Yes, I believe that miracles occur, but not amazing facts (like seeing a flying donkey.) After the above, define them as revelation in nature and in people's lives a supernatural significance. The miracle is not manifest to our senses, but our understanding. And does not alter the natural course of things. The miracle is symbolic, not wonderful. The vision of the starry sky above us and is miraculous, because it shows us God the Creator is in all things.
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment