Skip to main content

How can You Believe in Miracles in a Scientific Age?

In our scientific age, miracles may feel outdated. We live in an age defined by scientific progress, where natural explanations are diligently sought for everything from the intricate workings of the cosmos to the complexities of human biology and every unknown phenomenon sooner or later has a natural explanation. So how can one seriously entertain the notion of virgin births, resurrections from the dead or supernatural healings? Is belief in miracles a relic of intellectual immaturity, or is there a coherent way to reconcile faith in the miraculous with a commitment to scientific understanding?

Christianity does not reject science - it embraces it. Pioneers like Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Leonhard Euler, Galileo Galilei and Blaise Pascal were devout believers who viewed their scientific discoveries as a way to understand God's handiwork. Science, at its heart, examines consistent natural patterns. But miracles are by definition exceptions - rare, purposeful acts of God intervening supernaturally.

Science as a Description of Regularity, Not a Rulebook on the Impossible​

Science studies how the world usually behaves. It describes regularities but does not declare what is point–blank impossible. Declaring miracles impossible because they don't follow natural laws is like dismissing surprise parties because people don't throw them every day. Philosopher William Lane Craig cautions against viewing nature as a Newtonian world‑machine i.e., something that God sets in motion and never touches again - this is a view born of Enlightenment-era deism, not science.

It's important to clarify a common misconception that Christianity is inherently anti-science. In fact, many of the greatest scientific minds in history were devout Christians who saw their scientific work as a profound way of understanding God's creation.

The great minds that discovered our natural laws were followers of Christ

These individuals did not see a conflict between their scientific pursuits and their belief in a God who could act in extraordinary ways. They understood that science describes the regular operation of the universe, not necessarily its totality.

Isaac Newton (1642-1727 AD) was one of the most influential scientists of all time, whose laws of motion and universal gravitation laid the foundation for classical physics, was a committed Christian and theologian who saw the order of the universe as evidence for a divine Creator. Sir Isaac Newton, regarded the universe as created by God, who could intervene - Newton never insisted miracles were impossible, only uncommon.

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630 AD) was a groundbreaking astronomer who discovered the laws of planetary motion, viewed his work as thinking God's thoughts after Him.

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662 AD) was a brilliant mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian, who contributed significantly to probability theory and the development of mechanical calculators, also passionately defended Christian faith.

Defining Miracles - Exceptions, Not Contradictions to Natural Laws​

The core of the perceived conflict often lies in a misunderstanding of what a miracle is. Science explains how the world usually works. Natural laws (like gravity, thermodynamics, or the laws of biology) describe patterns and regularities we observe in the universe. They are descriptive, not prescriptive in the sense of being an ultimate, unbreakable force in themselves.

Miracles, by definition, are exceptions to that order. They are rare, specific moments when God, the ultimate Creator and Sustainer of these very laws, chooses to intervene in a special way. To say that miracles are impossible because they don't conform to the regular laws of nature is akin to saying surprise parties can't exist because they don't happen every day. The surprise element is what defines them as exceptions to the norm.

Science cannot prove a lot of things... does that mean they don't exist?

Science can reason and prove to the extent science can reason - it cannot prove consciousness. But just because it can't prove it, does not mean consciousness does not exist in every single being on this planet.

The same holds true for morality and ethics, aesthetics in art, the purpose of life, logic and metaphysics and many other things.

Does that mean none of those exist? Or perhaps that they should not exist just because they can't be proved by science?

Christians believe that God created the universe and its natural laws. These laws didn't come about because just because we found them - they exist because they were established by a rational, ordered Creator. For example, Sir Isaac Newton, discovered gravity circa 1666, then studied motion and the heavens and finally created his famous Principia Mathematica in 1687 AD, where he elaborates his laws of motion and his law of universal gravitation. This doesn't mean that gravity didn't exist before then and things just floated in the air. The laws were established by God when He created everything; and because He established these laws, He is also capable of suspending, overriding, or adding to them for a specific purpose. This is not a violation of the laws but a demonstration of His power over the laws by their very Author. As C.S. Lewis, who was a stoic atheist, once argued in Miracles: A Preliminary Study, A miracle is not an event that contradicts nature, but an event that contradicts what we know about nature from our limited observation. It's like an author inserting a plot twist into their own story.

The Centrality and Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus​

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is not only the cornerstone of Christian faith - it is also one of the most scrutinized events in ancient history. In short, multiple sources that conform to all of the usual checks and balances applied to historical accounts, show this event took place. For the last two millennia, there have been skeptics of the resurrection of Christ; and while many deny things; it doesn't change the fact that it took place as an event in history.

Facts and Truth

Facts don't care about your feelings.

Truth is not mine or yours - it's truth for everyone and that's what makes it truth. Follow truth!

Roman and Syrian History​

Even discounting the Biblical accounts, there is more than ample evidence from trusted non-Christian Roman and Syrian sources that attest to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. These weren't just ordinary men-they were legal experts and could think for themselves - Roman senators, and provincial governors. If anything, their testimony as hostile sources, is especially valuable and considered the most credible since they had no reason to favor Jesus or His followers.

The Romans were certainly no friends of Jesus Christ, or His followers - quite the opposite in fact! They scourged Jesus, gave Him a crown of thorns, mocked Him, crucified Him and later persecuted His followers the same way. And yet, their own historical records acknowledge Jesus Christ, the early church, and the surprising spread of Christianity.

If the resurrection of Jesus from the dead was not real, why was the message of Jesus spreading rapidly? Why were people willing to lose everything; be tortured and killed in such painful ways?

The simplest answer to everything

Jesus Christ - the ultimate Occam's Razor!

The Empty Tomb​

This is another key piece of evidence more often than not overlooked. The tomb's emptiness is not disputed by Jesus's contemporaries, even his adversaries. The Jewish authorities, rather than producing the body to debunk the resurrection claims, spread a story that the disciples had stolen it (Matt 28:11-15). This attempt to explain away the empty tomb inadvertently confirms its reality. If the body were still in the tomb, there would be no need for such a fabrication.

As argued by scholars like William Lane Craig in Reasonable Faith

"The Jewish polemic implies that the tomb was indeed empty."

The guard placed at the tomb, specifically requested by the Jewish leaders to prevent such an event, further underscores the seriousness with which the empty tomb was treated and the difficulty of its unauthorized opening.

The Eyewitness Accounts​

There were multiple independent eyewitness accounts of Jesus appearing alive after His death, to individuals and groups, some initially skeptical. Some people claim these are fake because these aren't multiple individual written accounts. By that logic though, all of ancient history would be unreliable given that most common people couldn't read, write or document events - they were too poor to own things like this. The truth is that most of the people and events known from ancient history are based on a few written accounts centuries after the events occurred - for the Egyptians, Syrians, Jews, Romans, Greeks and so on. Multiple accounts written within living memory are extremely rare. Many historical figures like Julius Caesar or Philip of Macedonia are known from a single source that appear much later. In fact, there's more historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth than for Roman Emperor Tiberius - and they both lived at the same period in history! Others argue that these were hallucinations, however, these appearances occurred in various settings, to different people, individually and in groups, over a period of 40 days. The sheer number and diversity of these testimonies make the hallucination theory incredibly difficult to sustain. Hallucinations are typically individual, subjective, and don't manifest to large groups simultaneously in consistent ways.

Radical Transformation of the Disciples​

Perhaps one of the most powerful pieces of evidence for the resurrection is the radical transformation of Jesus's disciples. After Jesus's crucifixion, they were terrified, scattered and in hiding. Peter, who had boldly declared his loyalty, denied Jesus three times. Their hopes were shattered, their leader dead, and their movement seemingly extinguished.

Yet, within weeks, these same fearful individuals were boldly proclaiming Jesus's resurrection in the very city where he had been executed, facing ridicule, persecution and ultimately, death. This dramatic shift in behavior, from despair to unwavering conviction, is difficult to explain without a profound, life-altering event. What could account for such a drastic change? The only plausible explanation, consistent with their actions and subsequent history, is their conviction that they had indeed seen the risen Christ.

Miracles as Signposts: Purposeful Divine Action​

Beyond the resurrection, other biblical miracles are presented not as arbitrary acts but as purposeful divine interventions. These miracles served multiple critical functions. They acted as a validation of God's messengers, authenticating the divine commission of figures like Moses, Elijah, and Jesus' apostles. Furthermore, they were demonstrations of God's character, revealing His compassion through healings, His sovereignty by calming storms, and His provision through providing food. Many miracles also fulfilled prophecy, showcasing God's foreknowledge and control over history. Ultimately, these events acted as points of revelation, unveiling aspects of God's nature and His plan for humanity that could not be understood through natural means alone.

In a scientific age that values empirical evidence, it's precisely the extraordinary nature of miracles that makes them significant. They aren't just "unexplained phenomena"; rather, they are events directly attributed to the intervention of God. While science seeks repeatable, natural explanations, faith acknowledges a realm beyond the purely natural—a realm where the Creator can interact with His creation in unique and powerful ways.

In Short​

Believing in miracles in a scientific age is not a rejection of reason or scientific discovery. Instead, it involves a robust understanding of the limits of scientific inquiry and a willingness to consider historical evidence for events that transcend typical natural explanations. Science tells us how the clock usually runs, but it doesn't preclude the Clockmaker from occasionally adjusting the gears or striking a specific chime.

God created and sustains the natural order of things, but He is also free to act within it in extraordinary ways. Science can reason and prove to the extent science can reason - it cannot prove consciousness. But just because it can't prove it, does not mean consciousness does not exist in every single being on this planet. The same holds true for morality and ethics, aesthetics in art, the purpose of life, logic and metaphysics and many others. Does that mean none of those exist? Or perhaps that they should not exist just because they can't be proved by science?

The historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, in particular, demands serious consideration, providing a powerful precedent for belief in divine intervention. Far from being outdated, belief in miracles, especially the resurrection, offers a compelling framework for understanding the profound claims of Christianity and the limitless power of the God who created both science and the universe it explores.

Suggested Additional Resources​