Article: "When Miracles are Gone, Everything is Holy," Chet Raymo

[Windsmith]

I am a biiiig sucker for Chet Raymo. A self-described religious naturalist, he writes about science and spirituality at his site, "Science Musings." He wrote this article, "When Miracles are Gone, Everything is Holy" for Easter this year. I was smitten in an instant, and I hope y'all enjoy it even half as much as I do!

I'm not going to put a time frame on this one, since it's our first reading group offering (yay!), and I don't know yet what a reasonable time limit is. So just go crazy!

"When Miracles are Gone, Everything is Holy," by Chet Raymo. (http://www.sciencemusings.com/2007/04/when-miracles-are-gone-everything-is.html)

[Eleisawolf]

As many of you know, I recently finished work on a production of The Sound of Music, in which I played Maria. It was a rather inspirational performance, and I attracted many friends to it because of the very spiritual content. Now, granted, it's based in Roman Catholicism--nuns and windows that God opens, and the like. After all, the real Maria von Trapp was indeed a nun... well, almost. But she found that the humdrum of life--the simple steps of marrying, having and caring for children, and living in a dangerous world--were more miraculous to her than the mystic path of the nuns in which miracles were paramount.

But that's actually not the point of my post. Heh... :hahugh:

A friend I made in the cast let me know that he wanted to discuss my faith with me after the difficult schedule of the show ended. He seems genuinely curious about what I believe, though something in his approach makes it seem that I have to take the process slowly. For example, to tell him right away that I am a Pantheistic Pagan might confuse him, given his Christian background and what seems to be a misunderstanding about other religious beliefs. I could be wrong about that, but the fact that I did mention the word "pantheism" and he didn't seem to register what it meant sent up a small warning signal. So, I've been taking the discussion from the point of view of someone who attends an Episcopal church but who sees value in all religions (his reaction, again, was to say, "You're a Unitarian!"

...

Uh, no.)

How does all of this tie in to the article in question?

I sent the link to him to demonstrate another window into what I believe.

Thanks, Windsmith. I might do further breaking down after reading it more critically with a deeper delve. But that's my first reaction upon reading it.

Peace
:boing:

[ravenscape]

Thanks, I very much enjoyed the article. He captured beautifully those parts of the NT that resonate for me. And more importantly, he captured what it is that causes me to marvel - the patterns and rhythms of life, and the occasional one-off glimpses of other peoples' perspectives on what is marvelous about this world, and this life we enjoy.

I have some other thoughts churning in the back of my mind, but they're not ready to come out and play yet.

[Windsmith]

I feel a wee bit silly. I got all excited about this article and started this thread - and then I forgot to give my impressions of it. Whoops!

I love this essay. That should be clear. Although my standard working definition of "miracle" differs from Raymo's (I tend to use the broader definition of "a great wonder," rather than the one that requires divine or supernatural intervention), but he really gets at one of the things I love about being a pantheist: everything really is a miracle. My life is a miracle. The very existence of the Cosmos itself is a miracle. Not because some deity or deities created it; not because it exceeds our ability to understand how it happened (hey, my mom gave me "The Talk;" I know how I came into this world). It is a miracle because the odds against it were so great.

I don't pretend to understand astrophysics or scientific cosmological studies or any of that mind-bending science that studies that gabillionth of a second that brought our Universe into being. But I understand enough to know that if conditions had been just the tiniest bit other than what they were, we would have no Universe. I know just enough about conditions in space to realize how incredibly slim the chances were that our planet would be in a position relative to its Sun, and containing just the right elements in just the right proportions, to support life. And I know that my mother had 1 miscarriage before me and at least 2 after me. My personal odds were not great, either.

That's what makes life and everything in it holy, and that what Raymo's piece says to me. The intervention of gods or the supernatural doesn't make something sacred. Just beating the odds enough to be here makes something sacred. To be surrounded constantly by this much holiness - to be immersed in a wholly sacred existence...this is why I get up every morning - or as Raymo puts it, why I rise from my pallet day by ordinary day. And that, in a way, is a miracle, too.

[Diotima]

Just my first thoughts- maybe I have more to come later.

In short, I disagree with some of the author's thoughts. He seems to be a great believer in science, whereas I have some big reservations regarding science as we know it- early 21th century Science based on tradition of Enlightment and in positivist ideas.
However, that same science has lately shown signs of that the reality might be against those very ideas- take quantum mechanics for example. There we can learn, that it is impossible (not just very difficult, but truly impossible) to determine both position and momentum of a particle. The best we can get out of our measurements are statistical probabilities. The very heart of the universe -the subatomic level of it- seems to be unpredictable and uncertain.
Another point I'd like to make is, that science is essentially a culture with a goal. The goal of science is to deliver us reliable information -or justified beliefs- regarding the world. In order to accomplish this task, and to accommodate to conditions in which that task is to be conducted, it has had to accept certain limitations. For example: unique phenomena (phenomena that occur only once, or even twice, in the history of universe) can not be scientifically proven to exist, because one of the core idea of science is that anyone equipped with sufficient knowledge and appropriate tools, must be able to successfully repeat a given experiment. However, this is a limitation that restricts the science, not the Universe and therefore it is perfectly rational to suppose, that there are, or have been some unique phenomena.

I think one of the most persistent traits in science is certain arrogance: willingness to believe that we know how the Universe works and what are its basic building blocks. Medieval monks believed this, and therefore they thought that it is waste of time to study the nature- after all, the Bible tells us everything we need to know about the world. After Newton and birth of classical mechanics, pretty much everyone thought that we possess the final truths about how the universe works. When Einstein and theory of relativity came, we again thought that while the universe was a lot more complex than we had previously thought, we now had a firm grasp of reality. Of course, then came the quantum theory which, interestingly, was inconsistent with the theory of relativity...

...and fast forward to this day. Today, most people still have great faith in science- after all, the seeds of doubt do not exist in the everyday level. Most scientists believe that Universe is essentially materialist- that there is no spritual level, for example, because no one has measured it yet. In order to be in a position to doubt science, you have to be either a devout believer of some very dogmatic religion (in which case, you can't really back up your ideas with evidence that scientists would accept) or have university-level education in right subjects. The reasons to doubt are there, but they are buried well.

Bear with me...the end of this little writing is near.
As a Pantheist I believe that to believe that I know how the Universe works is pretty arrogant- it is the same thing if a Christian said that she knows the heart and thoughts of God. Of course, many people say such things, but I think they are mistaken, for the heart of All That Is is not human brain. If the structure of all is some kind of Bohmian holomovement or the Dark Tower that encompasses size, it is not for the likes of us to understand. This is not to say we shouldn't even try- on the contrary, but to say, that as I see it, we are tragic beings who are, at the same time, understanding very much and very little. As I see it, we need open heart and open mind, so that we may not seek from the universe confirmation to what we already "know" to be true, but are in position to learn what it has to teach.

[Silverfangs]

I enjoyed reading the article, and agree with most of it. Yet I do think there is a lot of faith in science wich can lead, as said before, into "arrogance". The idea that someday we will discover everything about everything just took away the beauty of lifes misteries. I don't say we should live in dark ages, not at all, since I am a great fan of science myself. Yet the scientific arrogance disturbs me... is what makes Man become blind and make huge mistakes that can just turn wrong.
Science is a beautiful thing, sacred in its essence aswell. Technology is a miracle, in its own way. Yet most of the scientifical research is based on military issues wich takes a lot of the goodness of science. If we think that our main technological advances are just the result of military research, we may start to feel a bit strange about mankinds priorities in the world.

I am a person wich is always in conflict between to major concepts: faith and science. But I am starting to leave the battleground because I think there is a place for both in my beliefs. One concept does not aniquilate the other. They just complete one another.

What I am trying to say is that the article is very good, inspiring in a pantheistic way. But I don't buy the "science is all" thingy. To much arrogance makes me goosebumps... and manking makes mistakes when they are arrogant.




Oh well, those are my two cents.
Peace!

[Windsmith]

Thank you, Diotima and Silverfangs, for the well-considered responses.

I agree that it would be arrogant in the extreme to think that humankind could fully understand what is at the heart of All That Is. But I think the number of scientists who believe that we ever will grows smaller every day. Every question we answer about the Cosmos opens a new question - or a whole complex of questions - in its wake. No matter how big we make our telescopes or how tiny our cameras, there will always be something else to learn, something else unknown.

But the difference between scientists and "miraclists," it seems to me, is that a person who believes in science will look at the unknown and feel that itch to learn more about it. Constant exploration and learning. But the person who attributes the unexplained to miracles is content to chalk it all up to "God" and leave it. And while there may certainly be a time and place for walking away and admitting you've reached the end of your ability to learn more - for now - it never discovered penicillin or dwarf wheat.

For me, learning how something works in no way diminishes its wonderfulness. Maybe this is because I'm a writer; I create characters and worlds and strange inventions all the time, but explain the unfathomably elegant simplicity of how RNA replicates or that a plant can recognize its relatives...wow. The truth is stranger than fiction, they say, and certainly nothing I could invent would ever be as awesome as how the world really works.

I also totally agree with you, Silverfangs: military applications of scientific discoveries scare the ever-loving crap out of me. But does that mean that we should abandon scientific projects because they might someday have military applications? Of course not. Science in and of itself is neither good nor bad; it just is, explaining the world around us. What we choose to do with these discoveries can be good or bad, but not the discoveries themselves.

Still, none of that is the main point I myself brought away from Raymo's article. People who believe in miracles - people who watch for miracles - watch for them only in the extraordinary. The spectacular (literally - they're looking for spectacle). What a shame that is; they miss out on the miracles of everyday life - that we live at least twice as long as our anscestors and have devices that can help us see and hear and enjoy life even after our eyes and ears start to crap out on us. They miss the miracle of understanding the world and the Cosmos well enough to live more in balance with All That Is. Those are the miracles I want to look out for - and that's what Raymo's article speaks to in me.

Great discussion, everybody! Wheeee!

[airmist]

First, thank you Windsmith for so much contribution including this reading group. And thanks to the four others who added their thoughts on the article. It's nice to have others' thinking first to focus with. I'm sorry I'm coming in so much after the rest of you, but I really just started visiting the Pantheist area. I'm so glad I did; I feel so at home here, but it has me contributing to some of the threads later than everyone and I'm not sure what the custom is for "resurrecting" a quiet thread. With that terrible play on words, here are my brief thoughts on the article.

I think the article actually begs the question. The author's premise is that miracles don't exist and anything that is called a miracle is really called that either out of ignorance of the real explanation or out or religious necessity. To quote, "This is the most important conclusion of the scientific way of knowing: Miracles don't happen."

First, I understand the word miracle is used is so many common ways as to render it meaningless, if every usage is included as a denotation of the word. But I believe the only meaningful definition is that a miracle is an exception to the "natural law" or science, whether we now know the science or not. In other words, miracles aren't possible unless you believe in the "natural law" or scientific reality Raymo is espousing. The miracle is the extraordinary intervention or suspension of the natural law or scientific system by a deity or other supernatural force.

As a pantheist, I don't believe in an outside supernatural force that performs miracles. But does the divinity of our unity suspend its own rules on occasion for some purpose? I believe that is possible. That is not to say it has, only that it can. That is a spiritual belief, hence "miracle" would be possible (although I don't use the term.) To say miracles are possible is not to say they have happened.

For Mr. Raymo to say anything that happens can be scientifically explained is simply to deny miracles are possible. Ok, but that is really all the article does it seems to me.

[Windsmith]

I'm not sure what the custom is for "resurrecting" a quiet thread.Resurrect any thread you'd like, airmist! We're always eager to hear new perspectives and maybe getting back to some previous conversations.

As a pantheist, I don't believe in an outside supernatural force that performs miracles. But does the divinity of our unity suspend its own rules on occasion for some purpose? I believe that is possible. That is not to say it has, only that it can. That is a spiritual belief, hence "miracle" would be possible (although I don't use the term.) To say miracles are possible is not to say they have happened.Wow. That's a really interesting take on the situation, airmist. Are you saying that what science calls "a statistical anomoly" or "the exception that proves the rule," you call the Universe purposefully subverting its own natural laws for some unknown reason? I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying here.

For Mr. Raymo to say anything that happens can be scientifically explained is simply to deny miracles are possible. Ok, but that is really all the article does it seems to me.OK, I can see that perspective. But what I think the article does is try to direct our attention away from the "miraculous," whatever the cause, and reengage us in the amazingness of the everyday. To people who believe in miracles as divine/supernatural intervention, those miracles are all that matter. They spend so much of their time and energy waiting for miracles, waiting for "a sign from God," that they overlook the fact that the Divine - however you want to define that divinity - already has given us signs - a whole Cosmos full of signs, a planet teeming with signs, a life that is itself a sign of sorts. What I hear Raymo saying is to stop waiting for the inexplicable, stop hoping for something so "out there" that it couldn't be anything except the hand of God (because it could probably be all sorts of other things, anyway), and be amazed by your life, by this planet, by All That Is.

[Eleisawolf]

I get what all of us are saying here. One of the curses of my existence is the ability to see all sides of a conversation... heh.

Let me open out the discussion using the quotes of two different but very spiritual men, both of whom I admire greatly.

“People usually consider walking on water or in thin air a miracle. But I think the real miracle is not to walk either on water or in thin air, but to walk on earth. Every day we are engaged in a miracle which we don't even recognize: a blue sky, white clouds, green leaves, the black, curious eyes of a child -- our own two eyes. All is a miracle.” ~Thich Nhat Hanh

Now, on the one hand, I agree with this. I mean, it's so pantheistic! Nothing beyond real existence is as amazing as existence itself. Every bit of our daily lives, every sunrise, every blade of grass puts me in awe of life, the universe, and everything. But that's just the thing...

On the other hand, being in awe of something is very different from regarding it as a miracle. Seeing the colors of the sunset behind the Rocky Mountains when there's a fire in Southern California puts me in absolute awe. Holding a baby is an awe-inspiring experience. But neither baby nor sunset are miracles. They are the natural result of extremely commonplace processes. Even the fact that the existence of life in general, or even of the universe itself, was entirely against the scientific odds is not enough to make today's baby or tomorrow's sunset miraculous.

Okay, so I'm a writer and an editor, and precision with language can be very important to my work. But lack of it can be a barrier to understanding, and I've pondered long and hard on the word "miracle," especially since originally reading this article. I get rather upset about any word that loses its meaning because it is overapplied in an attempt to make a point about what it is or is not meant to imply. I feel the same way about "tragedy" being applied to an old person dying after a full life or even after a major traffic accident or, yes, even after the Minnesota bridge accident. When we observe the true meaning of the word tragedy, we see that these things are very sad, or even heart-wrenching, given some situations. But the word tragedy really has a greater meaning, more evocative of the pathos of the human drama, that is lost if we apply it to the every day.

In the same way, the word "miracle" is really meant to imply the "not every day." The unexpected, unexplained, and transformational moments that don't occur with every sunset or baby's birth, but that occur maybe a few times in a person's life. So I think it needs to describe as much.

Along those lines, I would like to propose my second quote as the definition I'm more apt to accept for the word "miracle."

“You have to take risks. We will only understand the miracle of life fully when we allow the unexpected to happen.” ~Paulo Coelho

In this way, I believe miracles do exist. Life itself can be seen as a miracle, from its very origin, becuase it was so unexpected and unlikely to ever have happened. And when the unexpected occurs in our lives, while it may not so much be a miracle in itself, it can bring about the miracle of transformation that takes us in unexpected new directions to become awe-inspiringly different people.

It just doesn't happen every day, that's all.

Just my ponderings for the day... tawk amongst yehselves...

Peace

[airmist]

Thanks to you both, Windsmith and Eleisawolf, for your thoughtful responses-even if I'm staying up to write this :) Also, I'm sorry I don't know how to do the quote boxes like you both; that would make it easier to write and read.


"...what I think the article does is try to direct our attention away from the "miraculous," ...and reengage us in the amazingness of the everyday. To people who believe in miracles as divine/supernatural intervention, those miracles are all that matter. They spend so much of their time and energy waiting for miracles, waiting for "a sign from God," that they overlook ... a life that is itself a sign of sorts. What I hear Raymo saying is to stop waiting for the inexplicable, stop hoping for something so "out there" that it couldn't be anything except the hand of God (because it could probably be all sorts of other things, anyway), and be amazed by your life, by this planet, by All That Is."


I didn't see the article this way, but certainly respect your reading of this in it and I would entirely agree with this point of view. It is a necessary point to make for the very reasons of overuse of the word "miracle" and the abdication of living and respecting life by waiting for miracles.


"Wow. That's a really interesting take on the situation, airmist. Are you saying that what science calls "a statistical anomoly" or "the exception that proves the rule," you call the Universe purposefully subverting its own natural laws for some unknown reason? I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying here."


Yes. That is the limited definition I use for the word "miracle." To quote Eleisawolf, "precision with language can be very important to my work. But lack of it can be a barrier to understanding."

My limited definition of the word is the suspension of the "natural" or scientific laws; I do believe that to be possible. I do not believe in an outside god, even in the panentheistic way. I am pantheistic in my belief that the divine is immanent in all of reality. I do not know why the divine would cause that suspension or "miracle" to occur. But on a metaphysical level, I accept it is possible. I would find the discussion of whether a particular miracle actually occurred to be a scientific discussion not a metaphysical one.