How does one distinguish between a "holy man's" miracles and the technology of an...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Credibility Collector
  • Start date Start date
C

Credibility Collector

Guest
...advanced civilization? Many have observed the fact that -- to an civilization with inferior technology and understanding of science -- any confrontation with an advanced technology is going to be interpreted as a "miracle" and/or a sign of a supernatural presence or even seen as a visit from a god/God.

If that is true, when one is confronted by a "miraculous" and "stupendous" phenomenon that is beyond explanation by the observer, how does one determine whether it is some sort of "divine encounter" (perhaps associated with some personally transforming event) OR simply an example of the technology of a far more advanced civilization?
______________

John_D: As with so many of your posts, you bring up some interesting points. But while I can think of examples of the tendencies you mention among native peoples and ancient peoples, I can also think of many counter-examples (from both the interaction of modern technology reaching native peoples AND ancient peoples who did INDEED see the hand of god(s) in phenomena such as lightning and volcanoes.)

This is a topic that I could wish we were on a more convenient discussion forum so that these various ideas could per pursued individually.
______________
JOEL V wrote:
"A miracle, by its very nature, does not follow the laws of the physical universe."

But, Joel, how do the observer determine that? After all, if could take modern technology back to ancient Rome, could I not easily convince many, most, or perhaps almost everyone that I was defying the laws of the physical universe by recording and broadcasting events in both video/audio? How about if I took back a portable cardio-resuscitation unit and used it on someone their doctors considered to be dead. Wouldn't it seem to them that I had raised someone from the dead???

For that matter, exactly how many minutes does someone have to be dead for their "recovery" through the aid of science to be considered a MIRACLE and not just an example of sophisticated technology?
And all of this brings up another interesting question: Plenty of skeptics simply REFUSE to believe that miracles are possible (e.g. amazing events from the Bible). Yet, surely the same skeptics would agree that if an advanced civilization were to come to the earth, they might utilize technologies which would far exceed our understanding and seem to defy the laws of the universe. (Indeed, depending upon HOW they contextualized such events, wouldn't many people interpret such "supernatural" phenomena as evidence of demonic or angelic or deity-related deeds??)

So if the difference is whether the laws of the universe have been defied, exactly how does one make that judgment?
 
A miracle, by its very nature, does not follow the laws of the physical universe. Jesus bringing Lazarus back from the dead, for example: It is physically impossible for one human being to cause a 4-day dead corpse back to life.

Miracles do not come from men, they come from God. God is the only being capable of breaking the physical laws that we observe every day.
 
At this point, the answer depends on your presuppositions. If you presuppose the possibility of divine, miraculous intervention, then you can logically arrive at that conclusion. But if you presuppose materialism or naturalism, you will just as logically arrive at the opposite conclusion.

But the whole idea of primitive natives worshiping technology as divine intervention is, with a few exceptions, more Hollywood than reality. Primitive tribes who are introduced to modern technology tend to react with curiosity and try to figure out how the trick is performed, rather than fall down and worship.

I thought it was funny how silly people in the United States run around wondering if David Blaine and Cris Angel really have magic powers, but when Blaine performed some tricks for the primitive tribes deep in the South American jungles, they reacted with rational skepticism.

The same is true, by the way, for ancient man. Contrary to popular opinion, ancient religion tended to rest on abstract philosophy rather than unexplained phenomena. We rarely see any example of thunder, lightning, and rain as signs of the divine in ancient religion. More often than not, they saw divinity in the existence of universals and innate human morality.
 
Back
Top