This is first in a series of posts about miracles. I have wanted to explore miracles for some time now. Lately, I have had some time to think about miracles while reading some materials preparing a class. This is a very interesting subject and there are a number of theories out there. People tend to hold to their theories very strongly. I am not sure why people hold their theories so strongly, given proving one way or another may be impossible. Proving any theory on miracles is out of reach at the moment. The best we can do is, objectively, explore the possibilities and see which one fits best with what we know.

This will be a series of posts, as I don’t think I can contain all of my thoughts in one short post. Difficult topics are never easy or straightforward. As I explore this topic, I welcome your comments. I welcome them because that is how we learn and there is nothing an amateur philosopher likes more than to be challenged. ;-)

In order to have a meaningful conversation about miracles, we are going to have to nail down the theories of causation first. We have to start with causation because a miracle, by definition, is something unnatural, unwarranted and unexplained. In other words, the only explanation, or cause, is something beyond our normal natural experience. Since we don’t see an obvious cause, we then theorize about what the cause might have been. God is generally seen as the cause, however others may see the cause as something spiritual or even some type of non-cognizant power or energy. For this first post, I will limit my comments to God as the cause and simply note that I understand there are other points of view. I hope to address these other theories in future posts.

In western cultures, there are two opposing theories about causation, Supernaturalism and Naturalism.

Supernaturalism posits a Universe where God is the cause of all things. Supernaturalism holds that God is the immediate cause of all effect. In other words, if you place water on a gas stove it would not be the flames or heat that boils the water, it is God who boils the water. Supernaturalism in this sense is not necessarily the action of spirits, ghost or the paranormal. Supernaturalism requires one cause; multiple causes (various spirits etc…) would be causing different things in different ways and nothing would be predictable. However, our experience is predictable.

I can see three problems with Supernaturalism. First, scientific inquiry seems like it would be impossible. Science requires predictability. If God intervenes unpredictably or does not cause water to boil just once, science is rendered useless. Second, supernaturalism leaves us with a deceptive God because the universe appears to follow natural laws. Finally, if God causes all things, it is not the ax murderer who kills people, it would be God. In addition, there would be no such thing is free will. Again, we seem to have a free will and if we seem to and we don’t, we end up with a deceptive God again.

A key thing to remember about supernaturalism is that science does not disprove this position. Science and predictability would only prove that God, “the cause of all things” is consistent, as consistent as the laws of nature.

Naturalism, in the classic sense, posits a God who created the Universe, the laws that govern it and was the primal cause by starting all things. Think of a line of dominoes, you hit the first one and then the one you hit, hits the next one and so on. If we look at the last domino to fall we can determine that the cause was the previous domino falling on it. We can look at all the dominos and see that this cause and reaction are predictable. We call the predictability natural laws and they are and we can determine their immediate cause. You can make the case that you dropped the last domino though secondary causes or a type of causal change. God is the primal cause and thus the source through inheritance for all other causes. In creation, we call this causal chain the cursus communis naturae or the common course of nature.

One problem with naturalism is it seems to support either a deist or atheist position. In its extreme form, naturalism is a deist position. God, like a watch maker, winds up the universe and lets it run without intervention. Naturalism denies miracles and requires an, as of yet anunknown, cause for anything that is labeled as a miracle. This position militates against many religions and theologies that see God as intervening in the world.

These two theories are seen as extreme ends of a large continuum of intermediate positions. Through most of Church History the majority position has been that God created the Universe with natural laws to govern them and that, on rare occasions, God intervenes. These rear incidents are considered miracles because they don’t fit in the normal course of nature. This position squares better with what we know from our experience and revelation.

In a later post I will explore some different questions about miracles:

• What if a miracle has a natural cause? Is it still a miracle? 
• Can science explain all miracles? If we can show a scientific explanation or natural causes for miracle, does that disprove God?
• What about the objection that eventually our science will catch up to the point that we will be able to explain miracles. Just because it can’t now, doesn’t mean that will always be the case.
• What about some of the extreme positions on miracles?
• Do you have a question about miracles?

Bibliography
Principe, Lawrence M. "Science and Religion." Chantilly,VA: The Teaching Company Limited Partnership, 2006.
Williams, Thomas. "Reason and Faith: Philosophy in the Middle Ages." Chantilly,VA: The Teaching Company, 2007.

Notes of a Baptist Exorcist: New Testament Teachings and Examples for Exorcising Demons Today
by Dr. Roderick H. Pyatt Ph.D.

I really liked this book and the balanced approach of Dr. Pyatt. The problem of most Protestants is they tend to gravitate to the extremes on the topic of possession and exorcism. Either they ignore the topic politely out of some sort of embarrassment or concern of how they will look to others or they see demons in everything and anything bad that happens to you is a direct action of the devil. Neither of those positions is supported by scripture. Dr. Pyatt addresses the topic in a manner that is biblical and not to the extreme. The book is more or less his notes on the subject. I think it would get better reception if it was more academic. For example, I would like to see it include footnotes and endnotes and if he spent time teasing out some of the finer points.

Characteristics of Possession

Pyatt also relates one way in which people can be possessed. Demons have to have some type of entry, in other words, they are invited. Often people will consult items such as Ouiji boards for some selfish reason. The items do not necessarily have power, for example the Demon is not in the Ouija board. He does however recommend disposing of such items. Not because they have power but for the sake of others.

Dr. Pyatt’s relates the following characteristics of possession. People, while possessed, will speak in a voice that is not their own. The demons typically show themselves intermittently with no set schedule. Demons will have some type of entry, typically using the spiritual or paranormal for selfish reasons. During active possession, the person is usually locked out by the demon that is in total control. The activity, duration and intensity of possessions are variable. When the demon is not active, we don't know if it leaves or becomes dormant. Dr. Pyatt’s position is that locations can be possessed (or infested [my word]) in addition to people. Does that mean animals can be possessed? He also believes that ghosts are disembodied human spirits and that ghosts can be tormented be demons. In one story he relates a story of a ghost that was hiding from what the ghost communicated was the "Dark Man" (demon). When a demon is present, people can sense an instant subtle change in the atmosphere of the house or location. Once a demon is cast, out it may return and may bring friends. Dr. Pyatt also believes that property can be possessed.

Pyatt's Approach to Exorcism

Pyatt believes people can have the God-given gift of discernment. With this sense of discernment, people can sense when demons are near and when a person or property is possessed. We should look to God for guidance on all things, including exorcism. Catholics require diocese bishop approval "Official Permission" to perform exorcism. Dr. Pyatt feels all Christians have the authority. In contradistinction to Catholic exorcism, ritualism is not Biblical. In the Bible, exorcisms were plain and simple. For Pyatt, Christians don't need anything more than Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Not by our power but the power of Christ, simple faith on what Jesus promised He would do for us. Likewise, he views Holy or blessed items, such as crosses or Holy water, as having no innate power. In addition he feels knowing the name of the demon has no bearing what-so-ever on the success or failure of an exorcism.

For Pyatt the purpose of exorcism is to bring glory to God and not the exorcist. He warns anyone who uses paranormal or metaphysical powers for selfish means or profit should be avoided.

Pyatt has a Shot-gun exorcism (his definition) he uses when there is no definite target. He asks the Holy Spirit to touch everyone in the room. He references God as the One to whom he represents, the One who is with him. When he addresses the demons, he talks to them as if they are human adversaries. He takes the fight out of them by making them expend lots of energy by getting them angry and upset. Not sure if it is the demon that gets tired or the host. This may take many hours. Typically, the demon will leave suddenly and everyone will notice a sense of lightness in the room.

Demons

Pyatt relates a number of characteristics of demons in his book. First off, in secular paranormal genre, they are often referred to as elementals or poltergeists. Demons have a hierarchy. Prime demons are the most powerful of the demons and the subordinate, or lesser demons are less powerful. In spite of popular belief, demons are not in Hell. They are roaming around hunting. Not only do demons have the ability to speak but they have a will, intelligence, emotions and they are self-aware. Demons can make mistakes and have negative reactions.

Pyatt's Take on Ghosts

Pyatt does not have a problem with ghosts being disembodied spirits, although Some Churches teach the belief that ghosts are demons. There is no proof-positive either way and there is nothing pro or con in the Bible about ghosts being departed humans. Pyatt also makes the claims that ghosts cannot be exorcised because they are not demons.

Pyatt’s take on Sensitives

People that are 'Sensitive' can sense demons and ghosts. He warns us to be wary of them and extremely cautious because many are charlatans. He says there is nothing wrong with someone who is a sensitive. The only wrong part is if they use their gift for personal gain.