I grow tired of reading about the "Miracle" on the Hudson. Even though I understand that when most people use the term to describe what happened, they are not referring to an act of God, but rather to an unbelievably lucky incident. What's been bothering me is the certainty that if the "Miracle" on the Hudson had ended with death and destruction, then any reference to the divine would be replaced by a reference to the actions of the pilot and crew. If a tragedy had occurred, the pilot would have been blamed. God would get a pass.
My question is, what is the opposite of a miracle? Is it an act of God? Would anybody describe a fatal plane crash as an act of God? I don't think so, the word tragedy comes to mind instead.
I also want to know what the secular term is that can be used in place of miracle. Then, the next time a lot of people avoid certain death through the actions of a highly competent professional, we can celibate instead of harping on the press coverage.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Logging you in...
Comments by IntenseDebate
HumanistDad · 844 weeks ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-vhyqx_Duc&fe...
Mojoey 107p · 844 weeks ago
jen 26p · 844 weeks ago
Dan Gilbert · 844 weeks ago
Procrustes 57p · 844 weeks ago
Therefore, if there is a God, then everything is a miracle.
If there is no God, nothing is a miracle.
Of course, that's from a believer perspective (though not admitted).
If we use the term to mean "something to look at," or "something to be bewildered by," which is the original use, then it's basically anything extraordinary, but, I think, something we "want" to look at. So, if we are in awe of something, and it's considered amazing to us, we call it a miracle. If something disgusts us, we won't.
The problem is that the religious people have adopted the term, and use it exclusively as both a way to show the positive things their God does, as well as proof of that God's existence. Don't some believers call the Great Flood a "miracle"?
So, there are two answers to your question, based on whether the use of the term is religious or not. If it's religious, the opposite is "natural," implying that what the believer is doing is classifying an event as "not natural," or "supernatural." If the term is used by a non-believer, or, in general, not as indicative of divine intervention, then the opposite is "everyday" or "boring."
r. molle · 844 weeks ago
saw that on another blog.
Rose · 844 weeks ago
I don't know what I'm trying to say here. But when they speak of miracles, they don't realize how much they've changed the word.
mikespeir · 844 weeks ago
Procrustes 57p · 844 weeks ago
Would the opposite of that be a natural agent inside the natural universe causing something to happen outside the natural universe?
mikespeir · 844 weeks ago
I don't have a clue. I'm just offering a bald definition. Probably would have no way to work in the real world. But that's just the problems with miracles, isn't it?
Jake Kerr · 844 weeks ago
I think wanting to find new words is absolutely the wrong way to go. When the secular can stake claim to a religious word and generalize it so that it is no longer religious, there is no bigger win. Each word that was originally religious and finds its meaning slowly eroded is another battle won for atheists.
So I say use "miracle" whenever you can, just not when referring to religious things. :)
Mojoey 107p · 844 weeks ago
Pook · 844 weeks ago