The Absurdity of Miracles: You are the naive proclamations you make

A man ambles across a zebra crossing. He’s talking airily on his mobile phone -- distracting him from heeding oncoming vehicles. A car, swerving to avoid hitting a wayward motorcyclist, ploughs into said man.

The force of the crash propels the victim, doll-like, into the air.

The damage: A crumpled heap two metres away. A football-sized spider web crack on the car’s windscreen. Zara shoes flung three metres, mobile phone strewn.

“He’s a goner for sure.”

But no. He escapes merely with a thigh bruise, stiff neck and two abrasions. And the fellow gets up and tells the shocked driver, ‘Don’t worry I’m fine, hey I have an appointment to catch, gotta run’.

Different people would take differently to this intriguing event. As a best friend, I treasure a precious life saved and a soul mate preserved. A religious person of easy persuasion, however, would go ‘miracle’.

Absurd.

‘Miracle’ is not a word to be bandied around lightly. Ascribing ‘miracle’ to an event signifies something beyond itself – an extraordinary occurrence that surpasses all known natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause. Basically, such a proclamation would attest to the power of the divine, as many a proclaimer would intend to.

First observation of strangeness: Said man isn’t religious. To slap a divine explanation on an agnostic who interprets things agnostically is worse than naïve, it’s disrespectful. One can do that to open-minded (read: stupid) children, but please, not to a highly-intelligent dean’s lister.

I am thinking too much? No, you are not thinking enough; let these sneaky religious terms infiltrate your psyche at your own spiritual and mental peril.

Second observation: No known natural laws were flouted here. Newton’s three laws of motion -- A particle will stay at rest or continue at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force, The alteration of motion is proportional to the motive force and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed, To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction – all held. (Wow did you really read all that)

He was hit, and he tumbled -- Law I, check.
He was hit by a slow-enough moving car, and flew in the correct direction – Law II, check.
He did not stand rooted after being hit; the windscreen also took some of the impact – Law III, check.

BASICALLY:
1. He was hit by a car, yes, the effects were dramatic, but he survived because he was hit by a slow-enough moving car.

2. If his head caused the windscreen crack and he suffered nary a baluku, yes, maybe it was miraculous. But before the m word is used, the user should find out where he was hit. If it was butt-caused, a bruise would suffice, thank you very much.

3. “God was protecting him; even as an agnostic, God was looking out for him.”?? Hogwash. One cannot attest the lack of injury to divine protection because that would be appropriating divine power and omniscience from said god. Oh unless one is a prophet. Haha whatever.

For if it happened the other way, and he got a serious lung puncture, the religious person would go, “He didn’t die, praise God, yes it’s the Father’s way of warning him to be careful next time he crosses the road.”

Or if we take it to the extreme and he dies, the religious person would settle on, “It was his time, nothing to be sad about, the Lord called him home.”

How can it be legitimate when every situation turns out in favour of said god? The religious may genuinely settle then on "it's God's will", but if that is the only remaning legitimate position to take, then no mention of miracle should be made.

So, improbable, yes, but certainly not miracle. You are the words you use and you are the hasty proclamations you make. Think about et.

This entry is second in a three part op-ed series, 'The Absurdity of Religion'. Read the first essay The Absurdity of Prayer here