Abstract
The present research examines the perspective of Robert Larmer, a contemporary Christian philosopher and theologian and professor at the University of New Brunswick, Canada, on the relationship between miracles and natural laws. Larmer considers a miracle to be an event in nature that has religious significance and which nature alone, without direct divine intervention, cannot create. By distinguishing between natural laws and the material conditions to which these laws are applied, he concludes that natural laws are compatible with miracles; because a miracle can occur through divine intervention in initial material conditions without violating natural laws. Accepting direct divine intervention in nature -as Larmer claims- faces two significant challenges. The first challenge is based on conservation laws in physics, which assert that divine intervention would violate these laws, and the second challenge is based on the principle of nature's causal closure, which denies any supernatural causation in nature. The article ultimately addresses these two challenges and, by differentiating conservation laws into strong and weak principles, demonstrates that naturalists' interpretation of conservation laws is incorrect. It will also be argued that naturalists' reference to the principle of causal closure to negate miracles is a form of begging the question. Consequently, by responding to these two fundamental challenges, Larmer's perspective will be reinforced.
Keywords: Miracle, Laws of Nature, Robert Larmer, Laws of Conservation, Causal Closure of Nature
Introduction
Miracles are among the foundational topics in the philosophy of religion, consistently attracting the attention of theologians, religious scholars, and philosophers. Theists believe that God is not only the creator of the universe and the laws of nature, but also occasionally imposes His will beyond the natural order—an act referred to as a miracle. This belief raises fundamental questions about how miracles occur and how they relate to the laws of nature. From Saint Augustine to David Hume, various perspectives have been offered regarding the nature and possibility of miracles. Hume’s definition of a miracle as “a violation of the laws of nature” sparked extensive debates that continue to this day.
This study examines the view of Robert Larmer, a contemporary philosopher and theologian, on the relationship between miracles and the laws of nature. In his works—particularly Water into Wine: An Investigation of the Concept of Miracle and The Legitimacy of Miracle—Larmer presents two key claims: first, that violating natural laws is not a necessary condition for defining a miracle; and second, that miracles can occur through divine intervention in initial material conditions. Using an analytical method, this paper outlines Larmer’s position, explores two major criticisms—namely, the principle of energy conservation and the causal closure of nature—and evaluates his responses.
Materials & Methods
The research method employed in this article is descriptive-analytical. Through rational analysis of empirical and philosophical findings, the study aims to articulate Robert Larmer’s perspective on the relationship between miracles and the laws of nature, and to provide a reasoned defense against the criticisms raised toward his view. The sources used include Larmer’s own works as well as critical articles addressing his theory. Furthermore, given the comparative approach of the article, more general sources have also been utilized to clarify the position of Larmer’s theory among other existing viewpoints.
Discussion & Results
There are four general approaches to the relationship between miracles and the laws of nature: the conflict-based approach, the contrast-based approach, the compatibility-based approach that denies divine intervention, and the compatibility-based approach that affirms divine intervention. In his works, Robert Larmer seeks to defend the fourth approach. To do so, he distinguishes between the laws of nature and material conditions, arguing that a miracle is the result of divine intervention in material conditions—an event that, while compatible with natural laws, carries religious significance. Larmer’s proposed solution has been criticized by naturalists and some theologians. This article addresses those critiques and evaluates Larmer’s responses.
Conclusion
Robert Larmer identifies three essential features of miracles: their religious significance, their realization through direct divine intervention, and their compatibility with the laws of nature. By distinguishing between natural laws and material conditions, Larmer seeks to explain miracles within a framework that does not violate scientific order. According to his view, God can intervene in material conditions without breaching natural laws, by creating or annihilating matter or energy.    
This perspective faces two major objections: first, its apparent conflict with the law of conservation of energy; and second, the principle of causal closure, which holds that the universe is a causally closed system relying solely on natural causes. In response, Larmer argues that the law of conservation applies only within closed causal systems, and that the principle of causal closure is neither scientifically confirmed nor philosophically defensible. Evidence from cosmology, such as the Big Bang theory, and from interactionist theories in the philosophy of mind, suggests that the universe may be an open causal system—thus allowing for the possibility of divine intervention in the form of miracles.