The Miracle of Believing in Miracles

Miracles are bribes for believers who are looking for a proof for their belief.

Miracles are not for the unbelievers.They’re for the ones already inside, the faithful, the devoted, the hoping.

Isn’t that strange?

Popular imagination treats miracles as interruptions in nature, divine gestures so striking and undeniable that they must, by definition, prove the existence of something beyond. 

And in theory, they are just that.

Philosopher David Hume called miracles “violations of the laws of nature.” 

He argued that because the natural world operates by consistent principles, any claim that those principles were suspended, even once, must be met with extreme skepticism.

The burden of proof, in Hume’s view, is not on nature, but on the one claiming to have seen it defied.

And yet, belief in miracles persists.

Rarely do they occur under scrutiny. 

Rarely do they aim to persuade the outsider.

Because most miracles aren’t designed to convince.They’re designed to comfort.

The miracle is not outreach.

 It’s maintenance.Reassurance.

Faith, by definition, is belief without proof. 

But lived faith is rarely so clean. 

It leaks. It hesitates. It wants confirmation.

And that’s what a miracle does: it stabilizes belief. 

It’s a reward for staying loyal.Or, more precisely — a bribe.

And who gives that bribe?The believers themselves.

They elevate coincidence into design.They interpret timing as intention.They shape noise into signal, because they need to.

This is my point of interest in this subject, this need.

Belief isn’t cheap. It demands obedience. Restraint. Sacrifice. Time. Identity.A miracle is a kind of spiritual ROI — a return on belief.It validates the cost.It says: It wasn’t for nothing.

But here lies the contradiction:If belief depends on proof, is it still belief?If faith demands reinforcement, is it still faith?

Or is it loyalty under condition?