A. Miracles
Great dividing line between Liberalism and Biblical Christianity.If people don't believe in miracles, there is no biblical way they can be Christian. It just doesn't work.
B. David Hume: Scottish Philosopher
Really important guy. (He'll be the main focus for the majority of tomorrow's lecture). Has major argument against Miracles. (But, he believed in God).Some people offer arguments for the denial of Miracles. Something important- they've got the burden of proof here. There's no argument that completely proves their non-existence.
After we prove that their possible, that's when you can go into specifics (ie. the resurrection, water into wine, etc.)
Logic addresses the possibility.
History addresses the actuality.
(Don't be fooled, History helps us prove miracles- at least the Christian ones. There is a TON of evidence for Jesus's miracles).
Miracles and Worldviews: The reason why some people can't believe in miracles, is because their worldview won't allow it (ie. Naturalism).
I've already listened to the next lecture, and it really does have some great stuff. If this sort of thing interests you- stick around, there's more to come.
"If people don't believe in miracles, there is no biblical way they can be Christian. It just doesn't work."
ReplyDeleteIs that a claim or a statement of fact?
CS Lewis wrote a whole book on the idea of Miracles. I think it was entitled "Miracles". And I wonder if the (non)existence of miracles is an argument that has gone out of style, I haven't read it too much in any recent writing.
Anyway, here's my view on miracles:
Some of these things that we attribute to miracles are simply things that we have no naturalistic explanation for. If it is unexplainable, we attribute it to God. My thought about this is, what if we do eventually come across a naturalistic explanation for this? Do they cease to be miracles if we are able to understand them?
Some natural events seemed to be timed out well enough that they were attributed to as miracles of God by the people of the day. Perhaps Noah's flood (depending on one's interpretation), or Moses' crossing the Red sea (possible tsunami wave), some of the plagues of Egypt, or the things that Elijah saw. In my opinion, just because something is or isn't a natural event, it doesn't cease to become a miracle.
The event itself is part of the miracle, but also the purpose of the event, the timing of the event, and how the people interpreted the event. If the timing were different, it may not have been interpreted as a miracle, but because it happened at just the right time, it was interpreted as just that.
As far as I can gather, God can work just as easily through natural events, causing them to do exactly what He wants them to, or he can create supernatural events if He so desires. To which of these do we attribute the term 'miracle' ?
Well, it was something Nash said, but I think it sort of doubles as a fact. If someone doesn’t believe that miracles are possible… they can’t believe in the resurrection (at least if they would define that as a miracle). I suppose the definition of a miracle would play into that a bit.
ReplyDeleteI’d really love to read that book (Miracles). I’ve heard it’s good. And I don’t think it’s quite gone out of style. I know of at least one person who doesn’t believe miracles are possible. Though, I think it’s a problem that gets masked. People may not come out and say that they don’t believe in miracles- but when it comes to actually trying to believe that miraculous things happen- they just can’t stomach it. They may, on the surface, appear to agree with the possibility of miracles- but then turn around and deny the happening of any actually instances.
Hmmm. This next one is a tough. I would agree with you. It sort of depends on your definition of a miracle. Nash comes to the conclusion in the David Hume lecture (my next post) that a miracle is something that seems to contradict with the laws of nature. He also sort of adds on to that- a miracle could also be something that has an extremely low probability of happening. In general, It’s something miraculous: Something that isn’t the norm. I think things can be miracles even if there’s an explanation for them. And like you say in your next paragraph- the people experiencing something also influence that.
The only real example I can think of that applies here would be sports miracles. They’re things that are physically possible- but extremely improbable. But ya, I would agree with you- just because something is or isn’t a natural event, I don’t think it stops being a miracle.
I defiantly agree with this next part. There are lots of things that play into miracles.
As for your last inquiry- good question. I have no clue. Or maybe you meant it to be rhetoric. How about both? I once heard someone say, “You can either take all sorts of things to be miracles, or nothing. It’s hard to go in-between.” I suppose they just meant that if you look at things with the right mindset- it’s easy to see all sorts of amazing “God” things. And on the flip side- if someone has a poor outlook- not even a miracle would do the trick.
Theres a typo... and I don't know how to fix it... "actually" in the second paragraph should be "actual".
ReplyDeleteMostly rhetoric. And I've got a copy CS Lewis's book if you want to take a gander. Its relatively short (100 pages or so), and Lewis has a nice writing style that is very insightful, but not technical. He can get a very specific point across without using specific jargon. Maybe that's why I like him.
ReplyDeleteAnd to conclude my thoughts: that mostly is my point. What do we define miracle as? How we define miracle has a huge impact upon the sorts of assumptions and arguments that one connects to it. If two arguing people don't agree upon the definition firsthand - then the arguments turn into mush. We start arguing about definitions, semantics, and nothing gets anywhere.
But if we can agree upon a clear definition, they we can begin to actually discuss whether miracles exist or not, and why they are important (or not)
I've read Screwtape letters, and the Narnia series- which I really like- so I think I'd enjoy it. I would definitely like to take a look.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree with that. Very true.