Is The Universe A Miracle?

Is The Universe A Miracle?

Yes, especially if you have great admiration for the world that science reveals.

Is it possible to propose to a person with no religion that while the universe may be a random occurrence and meaningless in its existence, it could still mean a lot to a lot of people? The short answer is ‘no’, but the longer one goes something like this: a cosmic religious feeling. That’s a little like what Einstein felt when he said it was “an unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

But then Einstein is a very funny cup of tea which one suspects even he didn’t quite sip fully. That can be gathered if one comes to learn how both sides of belief try to claim him as their own, simply because his utterances were unfortunately interpretable to either side as favouring them. For instance, the awe and humility he felt in the presence of nature was a ‘genuine religious feeling’, but one which was firmly grounded in reality requiring no supernatural or personal God. Meaning, without a literal belief in deities who dictate or guide us along our paths through life, we should instead be seeing ourselves as grownups on our own and responsible for our beliefs.

G K Chesterton, the Catholic apologist, used to argue at one point in his life that all natural laws should be looked upon as magic because there’s no logical connection between any cause and its effect. He wrote:

When all my days are ending
And I have no song to sing
I think I shall not be too old to stare at everything;
As I stared once at a nursery door
Or a tall tree and a swing.

What about miracles in that case? Are they not evidence that something greater than an accidental universe is at work? Maybe we could, as many do, dismiss Jesus walking on water or multiplying five small loaves of bread and two fish to feed a multitude of people numbering over 5,000 who had come to see him. We could even disregard as wildly anecdotal, Swami Ramakrishna Paramhansa’s mother fainting after seeing him feeding Goddess Kali from his plate. Yet, there’s no getting away from the fact that even in the 21st century, the Vatican still requires at least two authenticated proofs of miracles before beatifying or canonising a person as a saint. So are all believers fools, or do the rest of the fools not believe in the same?

Retired physicist Matt Young, put it in better perspective when he wrote: “I have dismissed what I call popular belief such as the belief in signs or miracles on several grounds.” He goes on to observe that, first, most miracles can be explained or accounted for without invoking divine intervention. Storms and other natural disasters, for example, need not necessarily be seen as acts of God, as our ancestors who knew no better did. Therefore, we may reject the arguments of those who give God credit for all that is good and ignore all that’s bad. We can assert in fact that they’re using evidence selectively in order to bolster a belief that they have to hold on to under any circumstances.

However, here’s a slightly different take. Miracles are commonly regarded as violations of the laws of nature, whether by divine intervention, supernatural or human agency. Most scientists regard such definitions as paradoxical as the laws of nature are fixed and immutable, and hence, those who think they may have witnessed miraculous events have been deluded. Some, on the other hand, however — including the well-known anthropologist and ethnologist, Lyall Watson, author of Supernature — see such phenomena as “timely reminders that science is far from complete.” One suspects Einstein would have agreed.

And here’s yet another take. Why indeed should the universe be a random occurrence and meaningless in its existence, when it could still mean a lot to a lot of people? Is there a reason for this belief? Yes, if they believe it’s a miracle.

Om Namah Shivay