Consider the following:
There is many a song which argues for the existence of a god from a personal perspective, by way of the lyricist making a case that some miracle has affected their life, and that this supposed miracle proves or evidences their god's existence.
Peart had experienced severe tragedy relatively recently before writing these lyrics (his daughter and then his wife died less than a year apart from each other). In light of Peart's recent tragic experiences, this song could perhaps be considered a rebuttal of those songs in which the lyricist states (or tries to imply) that their experience of a 'miracle' proves or evidences their god's existence (as I described above).
So what I'm trying to say is that, if the occurence of an amazing event in a person's life is to be considered a satisfactory reason for that person to believe in the existence of a good god, then we ought to at least try to be consistent, and therefore to wonder what conclusions should be drawn from terrible and unbelievable tragedy and suffering - what could perhaps be described as an 'anti-miracle'. Should we conclude, then, that god controls both 'miracles' and 'anti-miracles' - or should we instead conclude that unexpected occurences will naturally happen from time to time, and no god is required to explain them?
Consider the following: There is many a song which argues for the existence of a god from a personal perspective, by way of the lyricist making a case that some miracle has affected their life, and that this supposed miracle proves or evidences their god's existence.
Peart had experienced severe tragedy relatively recently before writing these lyrics (his daughter and then his wife died less than a year apart from each other). In light of Peart's recent tragic experiences, this song could perhaps be considered a rebuttal of those songs in which the lyricist states (or tries to imply) that their experience of a 'miracle' proves or evidences their god's existence (as I described above).
So what I'm trying to say is that, if the occurence of an amazing event in a person's life is to be considered a satisfactory reason for that person to believe in the existence of a good god, then we ought to at least try to be consistent, and therefore to wonder what conclusions should be drawn from terrible and unbelievable tragedy and suffering - what could perhaps be described as an 'anti-miracle'. Should we conclude, then, that god controls both 'miracles' and 'anti-miracles' - or should we instead conclude that unexpected occurences will naturally happen from time to time, and no god is required to explain them?