On Technology and Sorcery

I've been working over the past couple years on an argument for God by mystery (arguing that all things are supernatural by analogy with gravity and magnetism), but it is still scattered in various pages of notes. Until then, here are some thoughts on the miraculous. As with most of my posts (but especially with this one), I should say that many of these thoughts are not mine. I must thank my Petra education for most of the material here.

First, a quote from G.K. Chesterton (out of a book that I have regrettably not yet read.)

All the terms used in the science books, 'law,' 'necessity,' 'order,' 'tendency,' and so on, are really unintellectual .... The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, 'charm,' 'spell,' 'enchantment.' They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery. A tree grows fruit because it is a magic tree. Water runs downhill because it is bewitched. The sun shines because it is bewitched. I deny altogether that this is fantastic or even mystical. We may have some mysticism later on; but this fairy-tale language about things is simply rational and agnostic.
—Orthodoxy, Chapter IV: The Ethics of Elfland, 1909

As usual, Chesterton's point is powerfully put. Why should the common be commonplace? Why is it any more rational that water should flow down than up? Is it a scientific fact that our planet is warmed by a great levitating ball of fire, or is it part of the setting of a great Story-teller? or both? Where does science end and science fiction begin? We have become so accustomed to water turning into wine slowly that it seems impossible that it should happen instantly. How obvious it seems that water should turn into ice or even vanish into thin air, but absurd that it should turn into blood. A levitating helicopter, commonplace; but a levitating person, miraculous. What is the line between mirrors and magic, between technology and sorcery, or between tornadoes and tempests? Need we draw one at all?

A possible objection to viewing natural acts as magic is an appeal to science: That which happens commonly can be explained by natural causes; that which can't be explained (e.g. gravity, quantum mechanics) simply hasn't been explained yet. Essentially, it's not levitation if you can see the wires.
However, is a magic trick any less miraculous because the magician holds a wand through which the magic passes? Our scientific analysis of the natural world is merely a conduit for the miracles we observe daily. Is a seed becoming an oak tree any less miraculous because it's made of cells that grow? Isn't it equally miraculous that cells can clone themselves? "Explaining" the miracle of plant growth no more takes away its miraculous nature than listing the ingredients in a loaf of bread un-bakes or un-kneads the dough.

In a similar vein...

Power Point 9/19/2011
The little man up front bounces
foot to foot
waves an outstretched arm
followed by rows of squinted eyes,
small beside the great curtain
he points.

Instantly ink splashes and runs
down
into words
on the screen spelling

"Enzymes are proteins that catalyze chemical reactions."
One step too far.
The professor casts his shadow on the screen.
A glimpse of the cunning device in his hand.
The students still stare in silence.

And on again,
he casts revelations
on the screen
once more.

But the wonder is the
glaze in our eyes
and the unapplauded sound
of the tired tip tap
of the worn brown shoes up front.