The Dilemma for Christian Apologists
Christians will object to the following dilemma, no doubt. On the one hand, if they cannot explain how a miraculous event took place, outsiders will deny it happened at all. On the other hand, if they can explain how it might have occurred, then outsiders can say it’s no longer a miracle. All I can say here is that this is the unavoidable nature of the case when it comes to reported miracles in the pre-scientific superstitious historical past. Outsiders need sufficient evidence of miracles in today’s world to accept the Christian faith. Without this evidence the Christian apologist will always have a near impossible time defending his faith, and as such, I think he should simply abandon this attempt. Without present-day evidence or present day miracles, Christianity probably cannot be adequately defended at all. [First posted 8/12/07]
51 comments:
What do you mean they can't explain it? It's a simple scientific fact that "goddidit". Therefore, still a miracle, but still explainable.
;)
John,
You make a good point. One that will persist as long as sectarians insist that matters of faith include events and phenomena which lie within the realm of what may be known, and/or that god must do his work in ways that are unknowable.
To clarify, if matters faith were to constrained to what is unknowable, then there would be little objection ... simply because there is no practical conflict with objective knowledge.
With regards to "miracles", I'm left with the impression that most feel that if there is no magic involved, then there is no miracle. That when a miraculous event is explained, then those who previously embraced the miracle are then robbed of it.
So my point, is the the dilemma is self-imposed by the application of faith to the knowable, and/or by insisting that god must work by magic.
The dilemna is an evangelical or fundamentalist one. Liberal Christians usually don't claim that miracles can be objectified.
Christians will object to the following dilemma, no doubt. On the one hand, if they cannot explain how a miraculous event took place, skeptics will deny it happened at all.
Sorry, John, but I have to disagree with you here as much as any christian would.
I don't need them to explain HOW a miraculous event happened. I only need sufficient evidence to be convinced it DID happen.
All I can say here is that this is the unavoidable nature of the case when it comes to reported miracles in the pre-scientific superstitious historical past.
No, the problem with historical claims of miracles is not that they can't explain how they happened. Its simply that they can't verify to any reasonable degree that the miracle actually occurred (at least in any miracle claim I've ever heard of).
Which isn't to say that historical miracles are intrinsically beyond verification. I can easily imagine scenarios that would involve convincing empirical evidence for an ancient miracle.
But David, what evidence is there for one of the Biblical miracles?
I vote for having real miracles today.
God can do that!
Of course, the Israelites in the desert saw miracles and still didn't believe God. Jesus did miracles and people still didn't believe him.
In fact, Jesus said that even if one were to rise from the dead people would not believe!
:-)
Jon
freedomthirst.com
Hi Thirstyjon,
that is assuming that the scriptures are not a collection of folklore, but are "god breathed". There is more evidence to support the hypothesis that the bible is folklore than "god breathed". To believe that it is "God breathed" is to disregard the evidence to the contrary and and elect to put more importance in faith. Faith as I see it is the result of a process of reliance on Cognitive Biases.
John said: "Skeptics need sufficient evidence of miracles in today’s world to accept the Christian faith. Without this evidence the Christian apologist will always have a near impossible time defending his faith, and as such I think he should simply abandon this attempt."
1. By definition, Christian faith doesn't require evidence. Otherwise it wouldn't be called "faith".
2. "Sufficient evidence" is entirely subjective. Who determines what it is?
3. The life a Christian isn't built around providing skeptics with evidence of divine miracles. Whether or not evidence is presented really has nothing to do with the overall Christian 'faith'. A skeptic can say it's "no longer a miracle" until the end of time - it doesn't make any difference in terms of the validity of Christianity.
I should think the burden of truth would be on the skeptics instead of the Christians in the case of present-day miracles. If an event were to happen, and skeptics were not able to explain how it did happen, it would have to be something at least beyond the realm of our current science. As for pre-science era miracles, I agree, there is not much that Christians can do to verify them.
In terms of there not being present day miracles, the fountain of Lourdes has it's own scientific community responsible for identifying miraculous events that occur there. They are quite thorough, as the "miracles" that occur there take a minimum of five years of diagnosis, research and observation before they are officially claimed as "medically inexplicable" by a panel of medical experts who come from many different faiths, not just Christianity.
As to the alleged miraculous cures at Lourdes, one wonders how the diety decides who is to be cured and who is not.
Famous author and devout Catholic Flannery O'Connor went, albeit grudgingly, at the behest of one of her relatives and was not cured of the lupus that eventually killed her.
Hi John, Jason,
Religion is the only place where evidence isn't part of the business model or an acceptable part of the infrastructure or reasoning to a conclusion or decision. That just seems odd.
"Miracles still happen within the catholic church.
In the following site the 66 official miracles occured at Lourdes are described.
The miracolous nature of these healings have been scientifically proved"
This site claims that 66 miracles have occurred at lourdes. In how many years? How many people per day, per year, per century? Thats pretty paltry. It could just as well be chance. Unexplained does not necessarily entail god.
Now even if he enigmatically only decided to heal 50% percent of the people that went there and it was verified a miracle, then that would be something. If god commits to doing one miracle, why shouldn't he commit to doing enough to convince one of his prodigal sons?
But David, what evidence is there for one of the Biblical miracles?
There is no real evidence. Only stories. Which is obviously inadequate to establish that any of the claimed miracles actually occurred.
1. By definition, Christian faith doesn't require evidence. Otherwise it wouldn't be called "faith".
Which, so far as I can tell, makes it a form of self-induced gullibility.
2. "Sufficient evidence" is entirely subjective. Who determines what it is?
Who determined that having faith was a good thing?
As to sufficient evidence though, a few common sense principles go a long way.
For example, if you accept the claims of christianity on evidential grounds that you would find inadequate for the claims of another religion's supernatural claims then I think it clear to any reasonable person that you are accepting them on insufficient evidence and exhibiting a bias in favor of it based on personal preference and not evidence.
In terms of there not being present day miracles, the fountain of Lourdes has it's own scientific community responsible for identifying miraculous events that occur there. They are quite thorough, as the "miracles" that occur there take a minimum of five years of diagnosis, research and observation before they are officially claimed as "medically inexplicable" by a panel of medical experts who come from many different faiths, not just Christianity.
Fine example for discussion.
Please name the miraculous cure at Lourdes which you consider to be most clearly impossible if naturalism is true. We can then discuss the evidence for the claim.
But David, what evidence is there for one of the Biblical miracles?
David Ellis said...There is no real evidence. Only stories....
Good. Then the Christian apologist is in the dilemna I argued. He must try to either explain how they could've happened, or there is no explanation for why they happened.
I have seen apologists who have tried to explain how the Bethlehem star was a real astrological event. If they succeed it is no longer a miracle. If they don't succeed the skeptic can deny it ever took place.
As John said, Liberal Christians don't claim that miracles can be objectified. As a Nichiren Buddhist, I don't really believe any kind of divine (supernatural)beings or processes, making any thought of miracles a moot point.
What is a miracle, anyway? There are many ways to define that term. And until the evangelicals can cogently define it, they will always be at pains prove that one occured to begin with.
Personally, I think Christians in general would be better off to just admit that they: 1) believe certain things in that absence of any factual evidence; 2) strove to deepen their faith so that they needn't be constantly in search of some empirical underpining for their beliefs; and 3) be at peace with the fact that their elucidation of their beliefs is always going to sound gibberish and that they should abandon efforts to convert those of us who disiclined to accept supernatural explanations for phenomenae.
Again, John, I think thats a false dilemma. The "how" is simply by the exercise of the supernatural power of a divinity. There really is no need for explanation as to "how" beyond that. What is relevent is evidence THAT the claimed events happened. Not HOW they happened.
If you met Harry Potter and saw him fly on his broom and perform the magic spells seen in the movies you would have good empirical evidence that magic is real regardless of the fact that you have no understanding as to HOW magic works.
Or, lets say that a faith-healer begins visiting veterans hospitals and laying hands on the stumps of amputees. He calls on the name of Jesus and the limb grows back before everyones eyes in 2 seconds flat. He does this over and over to the point that fraud is out of the question.
There can be little doubt to any reasonable person that miraculous healings were occurring regardless of fact that even the faith-healer himself can't explain HOW it works.
David Ellis said...Again, John, I think thats a false dilemma.
Then why do apologists try to explain how miracles happened at all, like the Bethlehem Star? Let's say they never tried to explain them at all and merely claimed God did it. Then, as I said, skeptics can deny they happened at all. Besides, an explanation for how an event could've occurred is itself evidence that it did. And since we're not dealing with miracles that take place in front of me, which is what I claim must happen, and since you said the miracle stories are just that, stories, then they must try to explain how they could've taken place, since there isn't any present day evidence that they did. Then the dilemna kicks in, as I've argued.
I think we can both agree that it's true we must judge the miracle stories based upon the evidence for and against them, but as soon as apologists try to explain how they could've happened in the natural world, which is my point, they fall into this dilemna.
David said: "Which, so far as I can tell, makes it a form of self-induced gullibility.
Irrelevant. The point is "faith" doesn't require evidence to prove. Hebrews 11:1-2.
"Who determined that having faith was a good thing?"
Straw man. I'll ask again: Who determines what is "sufficient evidence"?
"For example, if you accept the claims of christianity on evidential grounds that you would find inadequate for the claims of another religion's supernatural claims then I think it clear to any reasonable person that you are accepting them on insufficient evidence and exhibiting a bias in favor of it based on personal preference and not evidence."
Agreed. However, this is a false example. We're not discussing Christians examining the evidence of another religions' claims of miracles. This is about skeptics demanding 'sufficient evidence' for proof of miracles.
Then why do apologists try to explain how miracles happened at all, like the Bethlehem Star?
This is the sort of case (like the common claim that a faith-healer cured someones cancer) where the event can and does happen naturally.
So, of course, in such cases its near impossible to verify that the supposed miracle was indeed due to divine intervention.
That's exactly why, in miracle claims, we skeptics harp so much on the necessity for the miracle being of a nature that could not happen naturally (instant regrowth of a amputee's limb rather than a simple cancer remission in the case of miraculous healing claims, for example).
At the very least, you need to make clear that your dilemma is applicable only to this narrow range of miracle claims (things that can and do happen naturally but, it is claimed by the believer, in this case happen by divine intervention). Instead you spoke of it as applicable to miracle claims in general---which simply isnt correct.
David Ellis said:"The "how" is simply by the exercise of the supernatural power of a divinity. There really is no need for explanation as to "how" beyond that. What is relevent is evidence THAT the claimed events happened. Not HOW they happened."
I think John is trying to point out the unusual tendency some apologists have of explaining Biblical miracles in natural terms(e.g. crossing the Sea of Reeds at low tide instead of parting the Red Sea) when they are trying to support the Bible as both an historical document AND a God's User Manual.
And I think he is quite right in pointing this out--either it's a miracle, in which case you need a lot of proof, bub; or it's can be explained in terms of natural phenomena, in which case, where's God?
jason said: "Irrelevant. The point is "faith" doesn't require evidence to prove. Hebrews 11:1-2."
I assume that, when John said "Christian faith" he meant it in the common usage of the phrase (i.e. "Christian belief system"). And he is entirely correct; skeptics (by definition) would require evidence of miracles to accept the Christian belief system.
"I'll ask again: Who determines what is "sufficient evidence"?"
That one's easy; the skeptic in question determines what is "sufficient evidence" for his/her belief. People are still free to believe things based on shoddy or no evidence.
I'll ask again: Who determines what is "sufficient evidence"?
There is no hard and fast rule (obviously).
People must use their best judgement, and can be in error.
We're not discussing Christians examining the evidence of another religions' claims of miracles. This is about skeptics demanding 'sufficient evidence' for proof of miracles.
This is quite relevent. In judging whether a christian or atheistic skeptic is weighing the evidence well in the case, for example, of the claim that there is a preponderance of evidence in favor of the resurrection of Jesus, one of the things that can and should be examined is whether both of them are applying their criteria consistently---if one (or both) of them isn't its reasonable to conclude they are exhibiting a bias.
These sorts of things are simple common sense that we all pretty well agree on ---until the subject of religion (and sometimes politics) comes up.
David Ellis said...At the very least, you need to make clear that your dilemma is applicable only to this narrow range of miracle claims (things that can and do happen naturally but, it is claimed by the believer, in this case happen by divine intervention). Instead you spoke of it as applicable to miracle claims in general---which simply isnt correct.
Can you please quote me the exact phrase where I said this? I never said all apologists do this, nor did I say it applies to every miracle in the Bible. Although some apologists do in fact think they can explain a great deal of them. Frank J. Tipler tries to explain such things as the virgin birth, the incarnation, the immaculate conception, and the resurrection itself in his book, The Physics of Christianity. And I have a two part tape series produced by Christians called the “Mysteries of the Ancient World” (Sun-Pko Productions, 1993) which is narrated by Dennis Weaver, and purports to explain such things as manna from heaven, the burning bush, the three who escaped the fire in Daniel's day and so forth.
Jason, if faith doesn't require any evidence, then why are you in a forum like this trying to convince atheists of your faith? The Hebrews passage you referenced seems to indicate that evidence IS important to the Christian faith (though not absolute proof, as such). The Gospels of Luke and John and the Acts of the Apostles were written for the express purpose of convincing people that Jesus was a real person whose performed miracles that backed his claim to be messiah. Are you stating otherwise?
Thirstyjon said, "Of course, the Israelites in the desert saw miracles and still didn't believe God. Jesus did miracles and people still didn't believe him."
And doesn't that make you the least bit suspicious of the veracity of those 'miracles'? If you saw a bona fide miracle you would (1) most certainly believe in the one performing it and (2) your life would be changed forever. After witnessing God's supernatural intervention and miraculous power, could you go on and commit the same bold sin twice, as Abraham did when he pawned off Sarah as his sister? Could you brashly disobey the voice of God, as Moses did when he struck the rock? We could go on and on about with examples of the rather casual response Biblical characters had to the supposed miracles of God.
You said, "In fact, Jesus said that even if one were to rise from the dead people would not believe!"
If someone won't believe in something as earth-shattering as Christ's resurrection from the dead, then miracles seem rather ineffectual.
Bottom line, the spotty way miracles are recorded in the Bible and the inconsistent behavior of the people who claimed to witness them lead me to believe that these were not miracles at all, but superstitious interpretations of chance happenings (or perhaps humanly devised magic tricks). Better yet, they could merely be campfire tales passed along from one generation to the next. The skeptic inside of me says they could even be lies to get people to buy into a religious belief system (the ends justifying the means).
David Ellis, I value your input here quite a bit. Do we have a substantial disagreement here? Do we have a disagreement at all?
Can you please quote me the exact phrase where I said this?
What you said was:
"On the one hand, if they cannot explain how a miraculous event took place, skeptics will deny it happened at all. On the other hand, if they can explain how it might have occurred, then skeptics will say it’s no longer a miracle."
You simply speak of miracle claims as if its applicable to miracles in general
Nowhere in the post do you specify the highly relevent fact that this dilemma is only applicable to miracle claims involving events that can and do happen naturally but were, in this instance, the result of divine intervention (like the Star of Bethlehem as a supernova example).
Not specifying this opens your argument up to legitimate criticism by christian apologists.
Do we have a substantial disagreement here?
Not if you tighten the argument up and clarify its scope.
David said: “There is no hard and fast rule (obviously). People must use their best judgement, and can be in error.”
If there’s no rule on what constitutes sufficient evidence, then we’re in an impossible situation. A Christian can look at the birth of child and claim it’s a miracle, a skeptic denies birth as being ‘miraculous’. For the first, sufficient evidence has been met, for the second, it hasn’t. Therefore, both are right and the Christian faith remains intact. Nothing’s been achieved or lost.
“This is quite relevent. In judging whether a christian or atheistic skeptic is weighing the evidence well in the case…”
Considering you’ve just made the statement that sufficient evidence is based on personal judgment, how are you in a position to say if the person is weighing the evidence “well”?
Joseph,
You’re misinformed. I’m not here to convince anyone of my faith nor do I need to. I’m simply pointing out that this particular argument is terribly ineffective as an attack against the validity of the Christian faith.
The three books you mentioned detail various accounts of the life of Christ and they also deal with the exchanges between Jesus and the various religious factions of the day, including the Jews and Pharisees (ironically enough, it was the unbelievers who had the easiest time accepting Christ and the miracles he worked...). Today, we don’t have Christ walking freely amongst us working miracles so I fail to see the purpose of your question?
jason said: "A Christian can look at the birth of child and claim it’s a miracle, a skeptic denies birth as being ‘miraculous’."
Seems like they disagree on the definition of miracle. Clearly, if your definition of miracle includes commonplace natural phenomena, then you are correct to say that miracles occur everyday, but you will confuse people you talk to.
If, on the other hand, your definition of miracle requires some kind of inconsistent supernatural intervention, then Christian or skeptic, you can agree that the common birth of a child is not a miracle.
If you want an objective foundation for determining miraculous events, you could say that the reasonableness of believing a specific predefined event is a miracle is inversely proportional to the probability of that event occuring by non-supernatural means. This definition would clearly rule out the birth of a child, while clearly accepting the spontaneous ressurection of a 2-day old dead body (if such a thing could ever be demonstrated to exist).
David Ellis, read what I did not say: On the one hand, if they cannot explain how ALL miraculous events take place, skeptics will deny that they happened at all. On the other hand, if they can explain how THEY ALL might have occurred, then skeptics will say they're no longer a miracles."
Notice the inserted bold words that must be included for your criticism to be correct.
David Ellis said...You simply speak of miracle claims as if its applicable to miracles in general.
Again, where did I do this?
Nowhere in the post do you specify the highly relevent fact that this dilemma is only applicable to miracle claims involving events that can and do happen naturally...
The reason is because apologists are never ending in their attempts to explain how the Biblical miracles took place. I mentioned a two tape video set where they deal with over two dozen of them, and I mentioned Frank Tipler's book. Whether or not Christians try to explain them all is not up to me. Do you know which ones they have not attempted to explain naturally? I do not claim to know that they have not at some time or another tried to explain them all. And I don't claim all apologists do this either, or that any one apologist has attempted to explain them all.
Jason, I consider myself to be very well-informed, having been steeped in Christianity for three decades as a preacher and teacher. Read the introduction to Luke (chapter 1, vv 1-4). In Acts, likewise, he speaks of "many convincing proofs" (chapter 1). Was Luke not opening up the entire account of Jesus life, miracles, death, and resurrection to inquiry and investigation? Furthermore, Paul claimed the Resurrection happened in time and space, with witnesses available to verify it (1 Cor. 15). Peter says Christians should be able to give a reason for what they believe (1 Peter 3:15). I can go on and on.
Whether or not these things actually happened is up for debate. My point is simply that your faith in the Bible, God, miracles, etc is not immune from rational criticism. And, by the way, you did a good job of ignoring my criticism against the miracles of the Bible.
Were they valid or not? How do you know? How do you know the miracles claimed by Islam or Hinduism or not valid? Does it all come down to personal choice? Answer me these, if you will.
David,
In terms of the most impossible medically unexplainable cure at Lourdes (a full list can be found here), I would ignore many of the older cures due to possible misdiagnoses from their more primitive medical equipment. I would then say that cure number 66 would be the most unexplainable, the curing of a woman's multiple sclerosis. It occurred after the time than MRIs were invented, so the diagnosis was most likely correct (although I don't have the specifics to reference). Multiple sclerosis as of now does not have a cure, only treatments to delay further symptoms, so the cure goes beyond what is possible with current medical and scientific tools.
Lee, as to the need for miracles to be something like fifty percent or any other regular occurrence, I feel this should not be necessary. There are ideas in science that are accepted as true that have never had physical evidence to confirm them, black holes being the biggest example that jumps to my mind. Astronomers have candidates that they believe might be black holes for a variety of reasons, but have not confirmed them, yet the idea of black holes still hold true due to theoretical mathematical and scientific logic.
Miracles, while occurring more frequently than black holes, and are much more easily physically viewed, and can exist from a philosophical standpoint if we believe that God exists, at least philosophically, but are not considered valid by the same people that would believe in black holes. This seems like a double standard in which people believe scientists unerringly but leave philosophers out of their "trust blindly" list.
Also, on a lighter note, all of the "Johns" being thrown around keep throwing me off. I really need to add some kind of last initial to my display name.
Hi Penn State,
I would then say that cure number 66 would be the most unexplainable, the curing of a woman's multiple sclerosis. It occurred after the time than MRIs were invented, so the diagnosis was most likely correct
the cure you are talking about was a MAN and BEFORE MRI scanning. Here is an excerpt from a transcript on a radio show on that case.
This is the response from Denis Daly a Doctor on the Case determining if it was "inexplicable" or not.
////////////////
Dennis Daly: "If I had been convinced that Monsieur Bely had MS, I would have certainly voted for this being inexplicable having been bed-ridden for, what nearly two years, he could walk. He was so frightened by it, he was afraid of frightening the other patients. So that's a very remarkable case, in any case. Now did he have MS or not? I don't think he had MS, personally. It was in the days before MRI scanning was available to give us concrete proof. But even if his illness was functional, it's still a very remarkable thing.
Raj Persaud: "By functional, I suspect you're doing this thing that doctors do. Which is, you're really speaking in a euphemism - what you really mean is was it psychological or psychiatric?"
Dennis Daly: "Exactly, yes."
Raj Persaud: "Well, I've met Monsieur Bely in Lourdes and he's certainly convinced that a miracle occurred."
Dennis Daly: "Yes, of course he is."
Raj Persaud: "So you voted against though in his case being a miracle. So what did you think had happened?"
Dennis Daly: "I didn’t know. I voted against it because it was said. "Here is a man who had multiple sclerosis who is now better". I, and other members of the committee, said we're not convinced that he had MS in the first place."
//////////////////
As you can see, it not as clear cut as you seem to think. The way you phrased it was, in my mind, a little misleading and someone with a desire to believe this sort of thing, a person exercising confirmation bias, might latch onto it and repeat it to other people of that sort who would repeat it and pretty soon we've got a legend on our hands.
The Penn State posting was from me, I was accidentally posting from another email address.
As for it being a man, I did indeed miss the mister (pardon the pun there).
As for the MRI scanning, though I said that I did not have the specifics of whether or not an MRI was used, MRIs were definitely available. The procedure was invented in 1973, and the first commercial scanners began to be produced in 1980 by Raymond Damadian.
Like I said, while there is definitely the possibility of a misdiagnosis, the other members of the medical panel were obviously comfortable enough with the man's diagnosis to declare it as accurate. Daly states that the vote was close, possibly only by two or three votes. But on a panel of 20 some medical experts, winning a vote by 2/3 and 2 or 3 votes would have the skeptics outnumbered by at least 3 to 1. Daly's scientific opinion is in the minority when it comes to this case.
Shygetz said: "Seems like they disagree on the definition of miracle. Clearly, if your definition of miracle includes commonplace natural phenomena, then you are correct to say that miracles occur everyday, but you will confuse people you talk to."
Then it's a shame more people don't look at 'natural phenomena' as miracles. ;)
"If you want an objective foundation for determining miraculous events, you could say that the reasonableness of believing a specific predefined event is a miracle is inversely proportional to the probability of that event occuring by non-supernatural means. This definition would clearly rule out the birth of a child, while clearly accepting the spontaneous ressurection of a 2-day old dead body (if such a thing could ever be demonstrated to exist)."
I have no idea what that means. :) Too technical for me.
Regardless, miracles are in the eye of the beholder. I can just as correctly claim my safe trip to England was a miracle as much as someone can claim their near death experience was a miracle.
Joseph,
Was Luke not opening up the entire account of Jesus life, miracles, death, and resurrection to inquiry and investigation?
I'm a bit confused by your question. Luke was writing an account of Jesus' life, the same as Matthew, Mark and John.
"Furthermore, Paul claimed the Resurrection happened in time and space, with witnesses available to verify it (1 Cor. 15).
"Time and space"? I'm not sure what this means either... It seems rather clear that Paul was preaching the resurrection of the dead, not immortal souls floating off to heavenly bliss. See also 1 Th 4:16.
"Peter says Christians should be able to give a reason for what they believe (1 Peter 3:15)."
Not quite: "And if you are asked about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it." (1 Peter 3:15 - NLT) This hope is based on faith, not evidence.
"My point is simply that your faith in the Bible, God, miracles, etc is not immune from rational criticism."
Agreed. Which is why I've never said as such.
"Were they valid or not?" Yes
"How do you know?" Faith.
"How do you know the miracles claimed by Islam or Hinduism or not valid?" I don't and I've never claimed as such. God could just as easily been the source of those miracles as any others.
Hi all
I've been searching the internet for miracle stories, and came up with very little of worth. I eventually found this site, which claims among other things, resurrections from the dead. The guy who heads it up is called David Hogan, I've heard of him from my Christian days. Here's an extract from one of his talks (from here):
Our farthest church out, a missions church which is very far away, a several hour hike from one of our strong churches, Chiconamel. Another 8 or 9 hours of hiking through the jungle, there is another church. [...] Here is this widow and a few kids, and you would think that God would surely protect her. But “sarampión negro” swept through and killed two of her teenage daughters. She doesn’t have any help and the village is overwhelmed because of so many people dying with this disease. She went to the town counsel of the village for help. And they said, “We are sorry, but we can’t help. There are so many deaths that we can’t dig the holes fast enough. You will have to take care of them yourself and put the bodies in a line with the other bodies, and we will get to your daughters when we get the holes dug.” This is just a little lady, almost a grandma, who has to now take her dead daughters, put a rope around them and herself and drag their bodies to the place where the dead are being buried. So she dragged her girls to the place where they could be buried. It took her all day to do that. You must understand that these girls are her own flesh and blood. She is alone. She dragged them there, and then because there was no one to help her, she had to go buy a sack of “cal” (lime). The jungle is unforgiving, and one of the ways they try to keep disease from spreading is by covering things with lime, which kills disease. So once her daughters were in the line, she had to go get a 45kg bag of lime and carry it on her back until she got to her daughters, cut the bag open and cover her daughters in lime. That took her all of that day to do that. (David begins to jump). – I can feel it! – I can feel it! – It is like…it is good. I can feel it, it is all over me. I like it! –
So the first day is gone. The second day she began hiking at daylight, alone; her daughters are dead. She hiked through the jungle to our first church, Chiconamel. When she got to Chiconamel, what did she find? She found the pastors and the elders together in the middle of an extended fast.
...
When the woman go to the church, the wives of the pastors and elders ask her to wait for them to finish praying. [...] At daylight, the pastors came out of their little room. They gathered their wives and the woman and they hiked 9 hours to the other village. This is the third day. Did you hear what I just said to you? Ok. They got to the village and they found that the daughters are very close to being buried. But they are not buried yet, they were next in line. The main pastor and the associate pastor each straddle (stand over with legs on either side) one of those girls who are covered in lime and decayed bodies. They stood over them and they called them by name, and both of those girls stood up, raised from the dead! Yahoo! And it is not my fault. It’s Jesus’ fault. It’s not my fault. It’s Jesus’ fault. “Sarampión negro” was defeated. Premature death spirits were defeated. Doubt and unbelief – destroyed. The name of Jesus – exalted! Wow!
This is the only story I could find of a genuine miracle, and if it's true, it's pretty amazing. But if it's not, then the guy's a barefaced liar. What do people think?
Jason said, "I'm a bit confused by your question. Luke was writing an account of Jesus' life, the same as Matthew, Mark and John." I'm sorry you're confused. Go back and read the forward to Luke: "Therefore, since I myself have CAREFULLY INVESTIGATED from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may KNOW THE CERTAINTY of the things you have been taught." Sounds like someone is making truth claims here based not merely on faith alone, but on an appeal to evidence.
Jason said: "'Time and space'? I'm not sure what this means either... It seems rather clear that Paul was preaching the resurrection of the dead, not immortal souls floating off to heavenly bliss." Again, I don't understand your confusion, unless you are just playing dumb. It's clear that Paul was claiming the resurrection of Christ to be a historical fact, not an vague concept of faith. He even listed purported witnesses of the resurrection, thus laying claims to faith based on evidence. This does not mean that I necessarily buy it any longer, but I think I have effectively demonstrated that Christianity willingly opens itself up to rational inquiry.
You said, "Not quite: 'And if you are asked about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it.' (1 Peter 3:15 - NLT) This hope is based on faith, not evidence." You're not skirting by so easily on this one, merely by appealing to a different translation. The Greek word for "reason" (or "explain," if you will) is "apologian" from which we get our word "apology" and, hence, the discipline of apologetics. If you think that Peter is advising Christians to win others solely on the basis of subjective faith, you stand virtually alone here.
Wasn't it Jesus who said, "Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least BELIEVE ON THE EVIDENCE of the miracles themselves" (John 14:11, NIV). How are you going to get around that one? Isn't that what is at stake here? The evidence of the miracles--the either establish Jesus' claims or they don't.
I said, "How do you know the miracles claimed by Islam or Hinduism or not valid?" To which you responded, "I don't and I've never claimed as such. God could just as easily been the source of those miracles as any others."
Jason, you're quite the shape-shifter here, and now appear to be saying that any religious viewpoint could be valid. You have no foundation, no ground to stand on, other than your subjective faith. In the end, you believe because you want to believe, not because you have anything to show for it. If I'm wrong, then tell me why you believe.
Better yet, how about critically evaluating what you believe based on the quality of the evidence itself (which is exactly what the Bible is inviting you to do!!!)
Hi John,
sorry about not recognizing you, and sorry if my tone in the last post was a little stern. I read it back and it looked rough to me.
anyway....
My point is that if you say that the last miracle is more likely than the rest to be authentic, and the EXPERTS can't agree on the initial conditions, I say it should have been "thrown out of court". People can't even have conversation without first agreeing what the topic is going to be!
So in summary we have
- a dispute about the initial conditions among experts,
- we have varying levels of bias for and against the miracle in each of the doctors
- we have pressure to decide for the miracle from the public and the church. I mean, thats what lourdes if famous for right?
and so you are happy with a 60% consensus among experts that this is a miracle? Where is the ALL MIGHTY in this miracle? Where is the GLORY in this miracle? As I keep repeating every week to various people, you are minimizing your god when you have to resort to this to get a miracle.
Hi Stu,
I translated “sarampión negro” and
a cursory investigation into "black measles" showed that there is no entry for it in medicinenet.com, the only entries I found for it were older and classified it as mis-diagnosis of a tick borne disease, and said that it was often fatal usually accompanied by stupor, delirium and coma. If it was a form of measles, it is easily treatable in the right circumstances. Meaning kids get measles vaccinations these days.
The story takes place in 'a land far, far away' with limited resources and as far as i can tell, limited means of documentation and verification. In my opinion until there is more information, the details could have been exaggerated and girls could have just been unconscious due to the disease. As i understand it, Coma precedes recovery in most cases where coma is involved.
To me, I wouldn't say the guy is a bald-faced liar, but I would accuse him of some cognitive biases, and consider this is as a "gullibility test".
This david hogan guy looks interesting. He's got a video on you tube, 'faith to raise the dead' and evidently this is a big part of his ministry.
If I find anything interesting, I'll post it in a comment.
Hey Lee,
Don't worry if you think you sounded stern in your last post. There's a fine line between discussion and argument, and even the best of us toe the line sometimes.
That being said, I hate to point out math mistakes, but there would have had to have been at least a 75-80% consensus among the panel if Daly's testimony is correct.
Speaking about the panel as well, the fact that they do indeed have varying levels of bias makes for a more balanced panel. Some people would flat out refuse to believe a miracle unless they see God doing it themselves, while others would take hitting all the lights on the drive home from work as a minor miracle (which theoretically could be, but the idea of chance is much easier).
As for minimizing the glory of God, the Lord works in mysterious ways. If we hold the Bible to be true, then God has worked through such simple things as farm animals, using the cock's crowing to remind Peter of his betrayal and Jesus' prophecy. It doesn't get much less glorious than having to work through a rooster, except maybe through a pig or a goat. God will work in His own ways, the way He feels fit to show Himself, and no matter how much humanity complains, there's really no way we can change it. In a savior, the Jews wanted some sort of military leader who could free them from the Romans, and instead they got Jesus. Imagine their discontent at such a disappointing savior.
"Sounds like someone is making truth claims here based not merely on faith alone, but on an appeal to evidence.”
In Luke’s letter, what physical evidence was presented? None except the spoken word from a disciple with the Holy Spirit – and that was enough for Theophilus and it’s enough for Christians today. Theophilus had Luke, Christians have the Bible. Both are evidence enough because of faith in the divinity of the source.
“He even listed purported witnesses of the resurrection, thus laying claims to faith based on evidence.”
Faith based on evidence isn't faith. This is the problem with your argument. Secondly, what tangible, literal evidence do you suppose Paul possessed that would have allowed him to state Jesus’ resurrection was historical fact?
"If you think that Peter is advising Christians to win others solely on the basis of subjective faith, you stand virtually alone here."
First of all, I've never said anything about Paul advising Christians on winning others over o the basis of faith.
Secondly, “apologian” simply means “verbal defense”.
Thirdly, even the word “reason”, translated from the Greek word “logos”, means ‘word or speech’. Nothing in this verse suggests that the explanation for the Christian hope should come in the form of tangible evidence. Instead, the verse focuses on the power of the spoken word. Similarly: “For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;” Col 1:5
Ultimately, there is no aspect of ‘salvation’ which can proven by evidence primarly because it hasn't yet occurred. Belief is based on faith, not evidence.
“Isn't that what is at stake here? The evidence of the miracles--the either establish Jesus' claims or they don't.”
Miracles absolutely established Jesus’ claims. But as the verse says, miracles were never meant to be the primary and only requirement for belief. First and foremost was, and still is faith. Note the words “believe me…” Similarly, “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their [the disciples’] word;” John 17:20
"You now appear to be saying that any religious viewpoint could be valid.
Red herring. Your original question was, "How do you know the miracles claimed by Islam or Hinduism or not valid?" to which I've already answered. We’re not discussing “any religious viewpoints”, we’re discussing miracles.
"If I'm wrong, then tell me why you believe.”
I believe for any number of reasons however explaining them to you would take us outside the scope of the original topic. I’m prepared to discuss them elsewhere if you’d prefer.
Jason said, "Faith based on evidence isn't faith."
Jason, of course faith can be based on evidence! You use faith every day in ordinary ways. You may believe the testimony of a trusted friend who swears by a certain home remedy. You may want to then confirm if your faith is deserved or not by testing the remedy out for yourself (although some people would believe their good friend no matter what!).
You apparently believe the testimony of the Gospel writers, and that serves as basis for your faith (if you don't come out and say so). Are you aware that eye witness testimony is accepted in courts of law as a form of evidence? I'm not saying this evidence is the same as PROOF (which is where you may have read me wrong), just that it is SOME KIND OF EVIDENCE.
Your explanation of the 1 Peter passage just isn't consistent with how the apostles themselves defended the faith. Paul to the skeptic Festus: "What I am saying is TRUE and REASONABLE. The king is FAMILIAR WITH THESE THINGS, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was NOT DONE IN A CORNER" (Acts 26:25-27). Gee, Davey, do you think that was an appeal to evidence to lay the foundation for faith?
One more example. John's epistles defend the existence of the historical Jesus. This is will blow your argument away: "That which was from the beginning, which WE HAVE HEARD [appeal to evidence], which we have SEEN with our EYES [another appeal to evidence], which we have LOOKED AT and our HANDS HAVE TOUCHED [yep, another appeal to evidence]—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it" (1 John 1:1-2a). I don't see how you can deny that this was the basis for their faith!
Now, do you then need faith to believe the rest of 1 John 1:2 ("and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us")? Absolutely. But your faith is now on the basis of some kind of evidence, in this case John's testimony that he had seen Jesus and his miracles. And if it can be shown that John's testimony was mistaken (or that John isn't really the person speaking here), then you've got a problem in your faith foundation.
By the way, you never address Jesus' own challenge to "believe me for the sake of the miracles themselves."
Finally, you claimed, "Red herring. Your original question was, 'How do you know the miracles claimed by Islam or Hinduism or not valid?' to which I've already answered. We’re not discussing 'any religious viewpoints,' we’re discussing miracles."
But Jason, doesn't that beg the question? If you believe miracles come from God, then why wouldn't you be willing to say that any miracles--whether that be in the context of Christianity, Islam, or Mormonism--IS from God? And (check this out) if God uses miracles to confirm his word, as Hebrews 2:1-4 clearly teaches, then if Islam's miracles are from God, it would confirm the Islamic faith. By refusing to deny the miracles of other religious faiths, you open the possibility that they may all be valid. If you say the miracles of other religious faiths didn't happen, then you open your own faith up to the same skeptical inquiry, which you are carefully (and desperately) avoiding!
Now, Jason, if you just come clean and admit that your faith is a subjective choice and that you are not open to any arguments for or against it, I will respect you. I'll also ignore your future posts because subjective arguments don't really offer much to this forum.
“Jason, of course faith can be based on evidence!”
Definition of “faith”: belief that is not based on proof (dictionary.com)
“You may believe the testimony of a trusted friend who swears by a certain home remedy.”
I have faith my friend is telling the truth – I don’t have proof or evidence to know one way or another.
"Are you aware that eye-witness testimony is accepted in courts of law as a form of evidence? I'm not saying this evidence is the same as PROOF (which is where you may have read me wrong), just that it is SOME KIND OF EVIDENCE."
Therefore, if I tell you I witnessed a miracle with my own eyes, by nature of your definition, you would treat my account as evidence that miracles are real. Take my word for it then, miracles are very real.
“Your explanation of the 1 Peter passage just isn't consistent with how the apostles themselves defended the faith.”
This verse isn’t talking about how apostles should defend their faith. It’s talking about being prepared to respond to questions regarding the ‘hope’.
“Gee, Davey, do you think that was an appeal to evidence to lay the foundation for faith?”
Paul was appealing to Agrippa, not Festus: “King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.” (vs. 27) Agrippa already had faith. What does this have to do with miracles anyhow?
"1 John 1:1-2a. I don't see how you can deny that this was the basis for their faith!"
First of all, John wasn’t writing to faithless unbelievers. He was writing to people who already had a foundation for their beliefs. Secondly, Christians today use the Bible as evidence for their beliefs, including a belief in miracles. Luke and Paul both witnessed miracles. If you’re saying their words are evidence enough, then yes, I’ll agree with that.
"By the way, you never address Jesus' own challenge to "believe me for the sake of the miracles themselves."
Yes I did.
"But Jason, doesn't that beg the question?”
It may beg the question but it’s still not relevant to this discussion about miracles.
"“Now, Jason, if you just come clean and admit that your faith is a subjective choice and that you are not open to any arguments for or against it, I will respect you.”
I’m always open to arguments for or against my faith. This, however, is a discussion on miracles, not a defense of my Christian faith. All in all, you've done a wonderful job of proving that, on the basis of eye witness testimony, miracles can and do occur.
Jason, thanks for you response. As to your dictionary definition, proof and evidence are two different things, are they not? (Dictionary.com calls evidence "ground for belief").
Also, there are a myriad of different definitions for faith. For example, another definition on Dictionary.com says, "belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion." In other words, faith is in something/somebody. You can call that something/somebody "evidence" if you want, or simply your "foundation" or "basis" for believing. Either way, I'm calling the object/basis/foundation/evidence of your faith into question.
Don't you think you should be looking at Vine's Dictionary of New Testament words? It's always been a favorite resource of mine and many other pastors/teachers. It defines faith this way: "primarily, 'firm persuasion,' a conviction based upon hearing." Faith is based upon something that's supposed to be persuasive.
You said, "Therefore, if I tell you I witnessed a miracle with my own eyes, by nature of your definition, you would treat my account as evidence that miracles are real."
No, I would simply say that you are making a claim to have evidence that substantiates your faith in miracles. Just because eye witness testimony is accepted by courts of law doesn't mean that all eye witness testimony is credible evidence! That's the whole point. The evidential claims which the Bible clearly makes, upon which faith is established, are open to evaluation. Plain and simple.
The point in bringing up the Jesus quotation ("or else believe in me for the sake of the miracles themselves") is to show that yes, indeed, the supposed miracles WERE used to provide a basis for faith. Without them, the apostles would have had no way of distinguishing Jesus from any other messianic figure or rabbi in the 1st century. Hebrew s2:4 (another scripture you ignored) says: "God also TESTIFIED TO IT by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will." Take away the miracles, signs, and wonders, and you don't have much basis for faith in Christ.
You said, "Christians today use the Bible as evidence for their beliefs, including a belief in miracles. Luke and Paul both witnessed miracles. If you’re saying their words are evidence enough, then yes, I’ll agree with that."
Well, finally, we're getting somewhere! You are saying the Bible presents written testimony as evidence for the Christian faith. Ok, great, we are now agree that the Christian faith is open to rational inquiry based upon evidential claims. Was that so hard? Now, the onus is upon you to give answer WHY you believe the Biblical acocunts of miracles are credible.
You said,"Paul was appealing to Agrippa, not Festus" Why are you quibling over this, Jason? You're not addressing the argument, but getting lost in technicalities. Yes, Paul was appealing to Agrippa, but Festus was present and this portion of the conversation (Acts 26:24-26) is in direct response to Festus.
You said, "What does this have to do with miracles anyhow?" It has everything to do with it, in the context of the conversation Paul was having with Agrippa, Festus, Felix, et al. At isuse was whether Paul's preaching of Jesus being Messiah had any substaintial basis. Paul appeals to the fulfillment of propehcy and resurrection--both miraculous claims.
Finally, you said, "This, however, is a discussion on miracles, not a defense of my Christian faith." But, Jason, aren't miracles being offered as evidence for God and the Christian faith? How can you seperate the two? That's been my whole point all along. Never have I said that the miraculous claims of Scripture provide SUBSTANTIAL evidence for a rational person to believe.
"All in all, you've done a wonderful job of proving that, on the basis of eye witness testimony, miracles can and do occur." Oops, did you just use the word prove? I thought you said that was impossible. All in all, you have failed to demonstrate that Jesus and the apostles were NOT making an appeal to evidence (e.g. miracles, eye witnesses testimony, etc) to establish credibility of their faith with unbelievers. I may have done a good job of summarizing what Christian apologists believe (I was one of them for two decades), but I certainly have not given any weight to their arguments.
I don't have any ego need for the last word, but I just wanted to let you know, Jason, that I am going to close my comments on this thread. As you can see, we're several days behind the discussion right now! Hope to dialogue with you some more in another thread.
This is my response to Lee Randolph (quotation below)
I have heard rumors of evidence that the Bible is folklore, but I have never seen any. I have only heard vague references to "contradictions" and "errors." The Bible is a pretty reasonable book with a pretty consistent message with lots of archeology to back it up. And it's principles work.
:-)
ThirstyJon
freedomthirst.com
Lee Randolph said...
"Hi Thirstyjon,
that is assuming that the scriptures are not a collection of folklore, but are "god breathed". There is more evidence to support the hypothesis that the bible is folklore than "god breathed". To believe that it is "God breathed" is to disregard the evidence to the contrary and and elect to put more importance in faith."
Michael Martin in his "Atheism: a philosophical Defense" expatiates on miralcles,citing a specific case of misattribution of a natural matter as a miralce.
In his "Defense of Hume on Miraclcles," John W. Loftus[ Doubting John @ Theology Web Campus, shows that Hume does not beg the question of miralcles.
He no more begs them, than we naturalists ask theists to show evidence to override the presumption of naturalism.
Christians will object to the following dilemma, no doubt.
You a prophet now? I already knew your name was John, I just had no idea that your nick-name was "the Baptist" as well..
if they cannot explain how a miraculous event took place, outsiders will deny it happened at all
You don't say. So if I tell you that water is blue, but I can't explain why it is so, you won't believe me, right? Or if I tell you that snow is white, but I can't explain to you why it is so, you won't believe me either, am I correct?
Without present-day evidence or present day miracles, Christianity probably cannot be adequately defended at all.
Did you convert to religion when I told you that the Jordan reverses its flow and the Holy Light descends each year for Easter? Surprise, surprise: you didn't. Others here said it was a trick. Protestants and Catholics think it might even be demonic in nature. Did the Pharisees believe that Jesus is the Christ when He did His miracles? Surprise, surprise, they didn't: they said that with the lord of demons does He cast out devils. Did Pharaoh and his court-magicians believe Moses when he did wonders in front of them? Surprise again: they didn't. They thought he was a magician, just like them, only cleverer.
As to Lourdes, Carl Sagan approached this subject in his book "The Demon Haunted World" thus (paraphrasing):
There are a certain percentage of spontaneous remissions which occur with many illnesses no matter where the patient is. So, if the "cure rate" at Lourdes over time is not significantly different in this percentage then there is no valid reason to ascribe the word "miracle" to any "cures" that are purported to have occurred there. Indeed, Sagan asserts that the percentage for Lourdes is well below the normal remission rate.
Post a Comment