Conversation with a Spiritualist.
By James White
THE following is a part of a conversation held with an intelligent Spiritualist on the subject of miracles. The other parts of the conversation were on other subjects. Spr.—You believe in miracles? Spr.—Therein I hold that your faith is unphilosophical. W.—Philosophy aims at the reason of things. What reason do you offer for your belief? Spr.—The laws of nature are unchangeable; therefore a miracle is impossible. W.—Do you discover any evidence of wisdom in the laws of nature? Spr.—Certainly; they are harmonious which is evidence of their wisdom. W.—You would be puzzled to prove that assertion, from your stand point. But granting that they are harmonious and wise; this further proves that they were framed by design; or, in other words, that there is intelligence manifested in their construction. Do you believe that nature is intelligent? Spr.—Ourselves and all that we see, are parts of nature; therefore there is intelligence in nature. W.—You do not reach the point. Neither ourselves nor anything we see made the laws which you call the laws of nature; they are above, and independent of us. We are subject to them as yourself admit by saying we cannot change them. Do you hold that nature is intelligent, and capable of designing or planning? Spr.—I cannot say that I do. W.—Then it is evident that nature did not make the laws by which she is governed, and of course, there must be some wise power above nature that ordained or framed these laws.118 Spr.—Well, that appears reasonable, and must be admitted. W.—That power I call God. Now if there be a God who made these laws, he must as maker, be above and superior to his own work. Do you admit that? W.—Very well; and as he is above these laws, and made them, they are matters of choice with him; therefore he might have made them different from what they are had he chosen. Spr.—It is but reasonable to suppose so. W.—It is more than a supposition; it is unavoidable. But if he made them as they are from choice, and could have made them differently, it is equally unavoidable as a conclusion that he might now change them, and form other combinations equally harmonious as those which we now see. This you admit? Spr.—I could not deny it. W.—And, of course, if he is the author of these laws, above them, and could substitute others for them, or change or supersede them, he might also suspend them for a time, if he saw fit. And this is just what we understand by a miracle: a temporary suspension or counteracting of a law of nature by Him who made them and controls them. So you believe in miracles, or at least their possibility and reasonableness, as well as myself when you reason on the subject. And that philosophy which denies miracles is a blind philosophy, not founded on any just reasoning whatever; or rather no philosophy at all.