The principle upon which belief in miracles is based is entirely that
of empirical fact. See G. K. Chesterton, _Orthodoxy_, ch.4 and 9 and
Stanley L. Jaki, _Miracles and Physics_ (Christendom Press, Front
Royal, Va.). The believer in miracles trusts his eyes (after suitable
verification to exclude optical illusions, altered states of
consciousness etc.) rather than deciding, on the dogmatic basis that
"laws of nature" are inviolable, that his eyes must have been fooled
when he saw something running counter to the normal patterns of
nature. Chesterton points out that what Hume and others called "laws"
of nature are really simply models of explanation for empirical data,
based on recurring patterns of nature. However, unless one has
observed all that has ever happened and ever will happen in nature,
one cannot formulate these patterns as ironclad and inviolable laws in
the same way that laws of logic and mathematics are inviolable. The
events (facts,happenings) that appear to "violate" the so-far-observed
patterns may in fact fit into a "larger" pattern as yet not fully
observed. Since none of us can observed future facts, we can't ever
formulate the total pattern of all of nature. This was Augustine's
view of miracles, as described ably by Benedicta Ward in _Miracles and
the Medieval Mind_. C. S. Lewis in _Miracles_ takes a slightly
different tack but comes to the same outcome: one may properly refer
to "laws of nature," but a change in one or more variables within the
equation represented by a "law of nature" will yield a different
result. A "miracle" then would be an unusual outcome brought about by
a rare change of a variable. The overall "pattern" or "law" remains
valid and inviolate but the specific phenomenon seems marvelous,
unusual, miraculous. Of course "miracle" simply means "marvelous" or
"arousing wonder."
Regarding the Shroud of Turin, the evidence for its authenticity is
overwhelming, as I have indicated in posts to this list several years
ago. There are plenty of reasons why the carbon-14 dating can be set
aside and the other evidence, including the pollen evidence but much
other evidence all points toward authenticity. Recently claims for
the rediscovery of the missing Veronica face cloth have been made;
superimposed on the Shroud of Turin the faces match along the lines of
Ian Wilson's argument for the entire iconographic tradition. The
coincidences are striking, though more research needs to be done. One
cannot say with finality that we actually do know what Jesus looked
looked like, but neither can one categorically state that we do not.
The image on the Shroud clearly has long hair!
Dennis Martin
>>> Jim Kerbaugh <[log in to unmask]> 12/07 9:32 AM >>>
Miracles for me, please.
Regards,
Jim Kerbaugh
[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> In a message dated 99-12-07 07:11:03 EST, you write:
>
> << > At the risk of stating the obvious, doesn't the recent
> > dating of the Shroud to the late medieval period cast some
> > doubt on this?
>
> Or, should one not say, doesn't this cast some doubt on the
recent
> dating of the Shroud to the late medieval period? :-})
>
> Oriens. >>
>
> For me, I'll stick with facts over faith any day. We just have to
make sure
> that they ARE facts.
>
> Pete Schermerhorn, in the glorious Berkshire hills of western
Massachusetts
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|