Evidence · Case 08 · Science
C.S. Lewis on what a law of nature actually is
One exhibit from the free evidence repository at apologetics.pro.
Lewis argued that laws describe the pattern events follow if nothing interferes. In his words, “It is therefore inaccurate to define a miracle as something that breaks the laws of Nature. It doesn’t.” He used a homely picture. Put money in a drawer on two nights running, and arithmetic predicts the total, unless a thief adds a new factor. The arithmetic never failed. A factor was added.
Sources
C. S. Lewis, “Miracles: A Preliminary Study” (1947), chapter 8
Objections & responses
- Lewis’s thief analogy fails because the thief is inside nature and obeys its laws. A miracle by definition introduces a cause from outside the system. That’s exactly what “violation” means, and renaming it “a new factor” is wordplay.
The analogy is imperfect in just the way described, and that should be conceded. Lewis’s actual point survives the concession: laws of nature describe what happens given a closed system, and whether the system is closed is not something the laws themselves can tell you. If there is a God who can act, his acting is an input, not a breach, in the same way that human free action is an input into physical systems without breaking physics. The question is whether such a God exists, which science does not settle, and that is what the claim says.