Can a Thinking Person Still Believe in Miracles?

Here is the sentence I hear most often from thoughtful people outside the faith, usually said kindly: “I can respect a religion that helps people. I cannot respect one that asks me to believe a man walked on water.” It is not hostile. It is honest, and it assumes that to answer it I would have to choose between my mind and my faith.

I do not think that choice is real. But I also do not think the question deserves the quick answers it usually gets, from either side. So here is the honest version.

The objection, stated fairly

The most serious case against miracles was made by David Hume in the eighteenth century, and most modern versions are his argument with the wig removed. It runs like this. A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. Those laws are established by uniform, universal experience. So the evidence against any miracle is as strong as evidence ever gets, and the evidence for one is always weaker: a few witnesses, who may be mistaken or lying. A wise person proportions belief to the evidence. Therefore a wise person never believes a miracle report.

That is a serious argument and deserves a serious answer, not a dismissal. But notice where its strength comes from. “Uniform experience” against miracles is only uniform if every miracle report is already false. That is the conclusion, not the premise. Hume asks us to assume that no miracle has ever occurred in order to prove that no miracle report can be believed. Philosophers have been pointing out this circle for a long time, and it has never quite gone away.

What science can and cannot say

It is worth being precise here, because “science has disproved miracles” is said often and means very little. Science describes what nature does when left to itself. A law of nature is a description of regularity, not a fence with a guard on it. If you drop a stone, it falls. If I catch the stone before it lands, I have not broken the law of gravity. I have introduced something the law did not account for.

A miracle, on the Christian account, is not nature malfunctioning. It is God acting in the world he made, the way a hand acts on a stone. Whether that ever happens is a real question. But it is not a question a laboratory can settle, because the laboratory studies what happens when no such hand is involved. A scientist can tell you, with great confidence, that dead men do not rise by natural means. Every Christian agrees. That was the whole point.

So the argument is not science against faith. It is one prior belief against another. If you already know there is no God, then miracles are impossible and every report of one must be explained away, however awkward the explanation. If there is a God who made the world, then a miracle is unusual but not unthinkable, roughly the way an author stepping into her own novel is unusual but not against the rules. The honest move is to argue about the prior question, not to smuggle its answer in through the back door.

The witnesses did not expect this either

People sometimes imagine the first Christians as credulous villagers who saw wonders everywhere. Read the accounts and the picture is different. When Joseph learns that Mary is pregnant, his first plan is to end the engagement quietly, because he knows exactly how children come about. When the women report the empty tomb, the men do not believe them. When Thomas hears that the others have seen Jesus, he says he will not believe without touching the wounds. These are not people primed to accept miracles. They are people who knew the world runs by rules, and who reported, awkwardly and at some cost, that something had happened outside them.

“When they saw him, they bowed down to him, but some doubted.” (Matthew 28:17, WEB)

That line sits in the last chapter of Matthew, at the moment of greatest triumph. Some doubted. No one inventing a story to win converts leaves that in. It reads like memory, not propaganda, and it tells you the Gospel writers were more comfortable with honest doubt than many churches are today.

There is also a pattern to the miracles themselves worth noticing. They are not random displays of power. Almost every one restores something: sight, hearing, a withered hand, a dead daughter, a tormented mind, a wedding that ran out of wine. They point in a direction. If someone were inventing a divine figure to impress the ancient world, the miracles would look like the ones in pagan myth, capricious and self-serving. These look like repair.

Believing in miracles is not believing everything

Here is where I part ways with some of my fellow believers. Saying miracles are possible is not the same as saying every miracle claim is true. Christians should be the hardest people in the room to fool, not the easiest, precisely because we think the truth matters and God does not need our exaggerations.

So weigh claims. Ask who reported it and what it cost them. Ask whether the story grew in the telling. Ask whether there is a plainer explanation, and be willing to take it. The Bible itself does this. It warns about false signs, it commends people who examine claims carefully, and it records long stretches of history in which no miracle happens at all. Miracles in Scripture cluster around a few decisive moments: the Exodus, the prophets, and the life of Jesus. They are rare by design. A world where they happened every Tuesday would be a world where they meant nothing.

That is a healthy stance for a thinking person: open, not gullible. Willing to be shown something. Unwilling to be sold something.

The question underneath the question

When someone says they cannot believe a man walked on water, what they usually mean is that they cannot believe there is a God who would do such a thing. That is the actual question, and it is a better one. It cannot be settled by a snappy argument in either direction. It has to be worked through: why there is anything at all, why the universe is intelligible to minds like ours, why we cannot shake the sense that some things are really wrong and not merely unpopular, and what to make of the resurrection reports, which are the one miracle the whole faith stands or falls on.

If you work through those and come out believing there is no God, then you will not believe in miracles, and you will be consistent. If you come out believing there is, then the question is no longer “can it happen” but “did it happen here,” and that is a question of evidence and testimony like any other in history.

What you should not do is skip the first question and then treat the second as absurd. That is not thinking. That is inheriting a conclusion and calling it reason.

Where to take this next

If you have been sitting on this question, ORA in SoapBox is a reasonable place to start. It is a study assistant that answers from Scripture it retrieves and cites, so when you ask what the Gospels actually record about the healings or the resurrection, you get the passages themselves, not a paraphrase you have to take on trust. It is a research aid, not a chaplain, and not a substitute for a church or a thinking friend. But it will not flinch at the question, and it will show its work, which is about all a thinking person should ask of any source.

Explore faith at your own pace.

SoapBox is a free Bible app with a live prayer wall, daily devotionals, and ORA, an AI study assistant that answers questions about faith with grounded, Scripture-cited responses — judgment-free, in 140+ languages. There's a private mode if you're just exploring.

Open the web app →