Last night an atheist asked me: “How can a rational person . . . accept . . . miracles . . .”
This question, like most questions, has built-in assumptions. The clear inference is this: It is irrational to believe in miracles.
It is? Why? Why is it irrational to believe in miracles?
You see, the limits or boundaries of rationality are determined by one’s worldview which is predicated upon or framed within presuppositions (beliefs we hold to be axiomatic). Therefore, it is one’s first principles which must be examined.
In other words, if one believes in the existence of God then it is entirely rational for one to believe in miracles. On the other hand, if one disbelieves in God then one will find the belief in miracles to be irrational.
We could simply say it like this: IF God exists then miracles are possible. If God does not exist—if the universe is a closed system of natural processes—then miracles are impossible.
Miracles hinge upon God.
Therefore, one cannot attack the rationality of believing in miracles without smuggling into the assault an atheistic pre-commitment. Such ventures are tantamount to asserting: It is irrational to believe in miracles because there is no God.
But this assertion is merely begging the question. That is, it assumes what has not been proven or demonstrated, i.e. there is no God. Naturally, I categorically reject the a priori assumption of God’s non-existence. And since I affirm the existence of God it is only rational that I believe in miracles.
So the question as to whether miracles are possible, and the issue of rationally believing or disbelieving in them, cannot be properly separated from the underlying matter of the existence of God.
Thus questioning the rationality of believing in miracles is a bit like putting the proverbial cart before the horse.