In Their Own Words XXX: It’s Miraculous!

"If you trace back all those links in the chain that had to be in place for me to be here, the laws of probability maintain that my very existence is miraculous. But then after however many decades, less than a hundred years, they disburse and I cease to be. So while they’re all congregated and coordinated to make me, then—and I speak here on behalf of all those trillions of atoms—I should really make the most of things.” – Jim Al-Khalili, professor of physics.

Jameel Sadik "Jim" Al-Khalili is an Iraqi-born British theoretical physicist, author and broadcaster. He is also the Professor of Theoretical Physics and Chair in the Public Engagement in Science at the University of Surrey. From a theological perspective he has been President of the British Humanist Association since January 2013. The British Humanist Association is essentially a geographical sub-sect of the religion of Humanism, which promotes humanism and aims to represent people who seek to live good lives without religious or "superstitious" beliefs in the United Kingdom. In the operating philosophy of this organization we see the impetus by which Al-Khalili operates. He wishes to promote humanism or the religion of humanity separate of religious superstitious (mythologocal) beliefs which he views as synonymous.

I always find it ironic that atheists are so fond of using biblical terminologies and are so comfortable resorting to adjectives or descriptors that herald or indicate divine or supernatural actions or occurrence. Case-in-point for this post’s quote: Miraculous. Even by secular standards, the most common understanding or definition of the world miraculous is either…

“Performed by or involving a supernatural power or agency…” or “Having or seeming to have the power to work miracles…”

To understand how the atheists views miracles we must visit the past and the theories of David Hume. David Hume lived in the 18^th century and was a Scottish philosopher, historian, economist, and essayist known especially for his philosophical empiricism and skepticism. When it came to the issue of the miraculous, David Hume was real careful to separate the miraculous from the empirical world a few hundred years ago. Being a product of the Enlightenment and Newtonian World Machine, Hume believed and posited that miracles simple become unbelievable for those of the intelligentsia (so-called smart people: academics, etc). Based on the physical laws there appeared to be no need for the incursion or need for God’s providence. Hence the Newton World Machine and the deistic theory that God, like a watchmaker, makes the universe, winds it up and then let it go to function under its own influence no longer to intervene held sway. The logical end to this line of thinking usually terminates in atheism or at least agnosticism.

With this presupposition we see Hume and later, a majority of atheistic academia subscribe to a Hume-esque explanation of the miraculous that says:

(1) No miracle in history is attested by a sufficient number of educated and honest men, who are of such social standing that they would have a great deal to lose by lying.

(2) People crave the miraculous and will believe the most absurd stories, as the abundance of false tales of miracles proves.

(3) Miracles occur only among barbarous peoples

(4) Miracles occur in all religions and thereby cancel each other out, since they support contradictory doctrines.

Hume concludes that miracles can never be the foundation for any system of religion. I, Andy Pierson could not disagree more wholeheartedly with these assessments. It is the very unique characteristics of Jesus’ miracles in particular that we see the unique character of Christianity and a God that directly intervenes in the affairs of everyday people like you the reader and I. From the very beginning we see the disingenuous nature of Hume’s argument for the refutation of miracles from an a priori source (God). 

Hume demands a posteriori “experience or sense-based evidential” proof. He is asking for naturalistic evidences or experiences (things of this world) to prove or disprove the actions (miracles) of a spiritual source (God). In Hume’s case he wants a posteriori experience or posits a need to have people or witnesses of the miracle and they had to have been “educated" and "honest" men by Hume’s definition. Hume and those that would adhere to Hume’s philosophy of miracles essentially hedge their bets and stack the deck so that no one could ever positively identify a miracle per se unless they were atheists or naturalists. Being atheist or naturalist, they will never do so. Firstly, because it would go against their worldview. Secondly, they would interpret the miraculous evidences in a naturalistic light, therefore totally misinterpreting them as worldly or physical in origin.

By Hume’s (and atheism’s) definition of “educated and honest” it must be assumed that they met an atheist’s or naturalist's (like Hume) criteria of being “educated” meaning they were naturalistic, empirical and bias to Hume’s view. Again, by Hume’s definition this meant that they could have no proclivity or bias towards the supernatural. In short, miracles then merely become an issue of definition.

Conversely, real miracles themselves being correctly understood are to have originated from otherworldly or supernatural origins (a priori) but being manifested in this world. Although highly improbable, they are not impossible as the Bible shows. As such they can and potentially do violate the “laws of nature” in their incursion into the a posteriori realm (Earth or Creation). We see right out of the gate that Hume demands a contradictory proof that is unreasonable and frankly unattainable.  Therefore Hume’s postulation is absurd and acting with duplicity of purpose. For all intents and purposes Hume is a functioning atheist that claims miracles are possible but certainly doesn't believe that statement.
So back to Jim Al-Khalili statement. He is an atheistic humanist that views religious beliefs (that include true miracles) as superstitions. Yet, he comfortably shanghaies the term miraculous to serve his means to an end. The irony is thick here. He speaks to the probability of being “here” or existent. What he doesn’t elucidate is the probability of the miraculous. He is inadvertently toying with words here. He says his existence is miraculous while simultaneously denying the possibility of a supernatural miracle. Am I playing a word game here? No, he is. Let’s go back to what constitutes a true miracle. A miracle by definition is an event that is not explicable or explainable by natural or scientific laws. Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being. Many will claim that the definition of a miracle is any beneficial event that is statistically unlikely but not contrary to the laws of nature, this by definition is not a true miracle in the theological sense.

So whether he realizes he has done so or not, Al-Khalili is therefore claiming his existence is supernatural from a statistical standpoint. Otherwise he should have said his existence was statistically impossible. This terminology would’ve better followed suit semantically with his “laws of probability” statement. Instead he injects an etymological misnomer and confuses epistemologies. In doing so he is betraying the truth of what he really believes but won’t admit. He believes in what can be viewed by Christians as miracles but refuses to call it such. At this point it is just a game of semantics. 

He believes in what can be construed as a miracle he just refers to them or frames them under the heading of statistical probabilities / impossibilities. He knows how rare his existence is if it is a product of mere chance. His existence by the numbers is an impossibility and he knows it or he would’ve never made this type of statement and used the word miraculous smack dab in the middle of it. 

Sometimes atheists are funny because of the extent to which they will go to avoid admitting to God’s existence…even when the odds and statistics demand it.