In part 4 around the 6:40 marker Lennox said "science cannot tell us...whether that the resurrection of Jesus is impossible. To decide whether it happened or not is a matter of history."
Telling isn't this? In the first place, he demands that science must show something to be impossible. Actually, science can do this with the scientific method since science qua science assumes a natural methodology--a natural presumption--and as such a scientist must conclude a resurrection is impossible by those standards. But even if science cannot show the existence of a miracle working God is impossible because such an entity might be beyond the scope of scientific methodology, Lennox must agree that such a thing is extremely improbable, otherwise why has there been no other miraculous event in the history of mankind?
Secondly, Lennox believes Jesus resurrected because of historical evidence. What he and other believers must do is to pit scientific evidence, which shows us that is it is impossible by virtue of scientific investigations to conclude Jesus resurrected, against historical evidence. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who has deeply studied what historical studies can or cannot show about non-supernatural claims of the past knows that affirming what actually took place in the past is mostly a series of good guesses, and that's it. Some guesses are much better than others, of course. They know that different, alternative, historical conclusions are always possible if for no other reason than that the evidence was suppressed, destroyed or lost. We also know that even in today's world every scientifically literate person knows to be skeptical of any present-day miraculous claim. So how much more is it the case that we should be skeptical about any so-called miracle claim in the historical past.
I'll go with scientific evidence every single time over historical claims.
Shermer puts the case very well, and he's pretty funny too: "what do you get when you cross an atheist with a Jehovah's Witness? Someone who knocks on your door for no reason at all".
I've almost learned to hate philosophy because of arguments similar to those used by Prof. Lennox. For example, he states things like, "Science cannot PROVE anything. We cannot even prove the universe exists." While these philosophers typically are acutely aware of the scientific method and how it attempts to valid hypotheses or theories, they prey on the ignorant and their misunderstanding of scientific theory. It is true that when we test a hypothesis data is not used to "prove" or "disprove" the hypothesis, but rather data rejects or fails to reject the hypothesis. However, what people like Prof. Lennox are doing is failing to explain that science can help us what to think through the weight of the evidence overall. What does the weight of the evidence tell us? That there is not one bit of natural evidence known for the existence of God.
Well, I've pretty much watched the whole hour and half. Nothing new under the sun. Didn't catch Lennox on the issue Toby brought up, but it's pretty much agreed, I think, that the scientific method can produce overwealming confidence, but cannot produce certainty.
I tend to define "divinity" as that which orders the universe. And I challenge anyone to reject divinity by that definition. What Shermer is saying is that he's chose to believe that divinity lacks volition... its an automaton. I think it's valid to call that a faith proposition. And I'm pretty confident that regular forces prevail. So many atheists seem to insist they ought not, that God ought have a hand in everything. You can't put Baby in a corner.
Lennox speaks of Christianity as a force in bringing us toward confidence in the regularity of Divinity... as a precursor to science. That's because it was not arguing against atheism at the time of its birth, but against superstition and the predatory priesthood. It seems Christianity has become a vessel of the same, especially when the reactionary elements within come to prevail and become the public face of the faith.
Bobcmu: Let me say something about "I tend to define "divinity" as that which orders the universe. And I challenge anyone to reject divinity by that definition."
What you call "order" is entirely subjective. Maybe when you look out at your window you see a sort of regularity and repetition and things happening over and over the way they always have. That is a subjective take on "The Universe".
What is "The Universe" about which you are speaking? It is an idea. of course, therefore, you would see the order of which you are speak, since when you talk about "The Universe" you are implicitly talking about The realm of Lawlike Changes of Your Familiar Perception.
What you are calling "The Universe" is probably more closely related to the more recent philosophical idea of "Nature".
Notice that "Nature" is derived from a latin word. The concept of Nature is in fact a very recent invention in philosophy, definitely something that comes into the History of Thought in any serious way the last few hundred years with the invention of Scientific Method. Nature is the realm of lawlike change, where the events that are studied via scientific methodology are studied. What you are calling "The Universe" is probably, though I can't be sure, something like a bastardization of that philosophical notion.
It is important to keep in mind that early Christians did not have a concept of "Nature". Even today, most ordinary people have a very vague notion of Nature as being somehow connected to The Outdoors.
Early Christians thought of themselves in contrast to "The World". The World, as this phrase is used in the Bible, is not what we call "Nature". The World is already The Realm of Evil, where people who do not believe in god live and work. Christians live in The World but are not of The World.
There is no evidence at all that any Biblical writer had the slightest idea of anything like "Nature". Even wind and waves and earthquakes and suchlike were connected to the Spirit Realm.
It has taken centuries of intense intellectual effort to articulate the concept of Nature that we are even now only barely acquainted with. Nature is the realm of physical law. Nature is a space where cause and effect have a certain structure. Etc Etc.
For the Bible writers the idea of Nature would not have made any sense, because God lives everywhere and in everything and he makes all of the things that we think of as "natural" phenomena happen.
So, the order that you see in "The Universe" is a fiction.
Leave it to a mathematician to get all picky about nomenclature. Would Godel have said what you just did, Thomas? He seemed more a proponent of the reality of the imaginary than of the fiction of the sensory.
Anyhow... agreeing what words mean does facilitate communication, but when departure is made from plain language, the communication becomes a bit clubby, cliquey. I do pick up the sense I think you're trying to convey, that a self-regulating system is a novel discovery in human history.
The spheres were once fixed to the firmanent and the planets drawn by charioteers and fat cheeked cloud beings blew winds from the four corners of the flat earth. And whether animated by a pantheon of beings much like us, or by the edict of a single being much like us, "Divinity" was an active and willful participant in the motion about us.
So when did we begin to presume regularity? And when did we begin to regard that regularity as the nature of divinity, as opposed to personality?
I happen to agree with Lennox that Christianity was instrumental in that progression from superstition toward science.
You have a really superficial understanding of Nature, The Universe and hence the things into which scientific research is being carried out. "Divinity" of any kind has vanished from the equation entirely.
But what I like most is your historical assertion at the end about the relation of Christianity to science.
Greek mathematicians in antiquity were entirely Pagan, so would you like to celebrate the Pagan contributions to Geometry? What do you say we celebrate the Pagan origins of the Pythagorean Theorem, which is a piece of mathematics we teach to children? Or, suppose we celebrate the Arabic, i.e. Muslim, origins/development of Algebra (a subject whose name is actually derived from the name of a particular Arab mathematician)? Or perhaps you would like to relate the notion of Abacus computability to the humble abacus, invented by the Chinese, who were not in any way Christian?
So, what, about the development of science or the naturalistic worldview is particularly indebted to Christians? The Christians have almost uniformly been the problem here.
Anyway, Nazi scientists are the only people who ever really trumpeted the supposedly "Christian" debt of the sciences, which was just a racist way of saying European civilization is superior to the rest of the world.
When you help yourself to that discourse of how Christianity is a part of curing the world of superstition you are actually participating in a racist/imperialistic discourse wherein you are actually arguing for the superiority of Europe over the rest of the world. Research it. That whole idea of christian science liberating the world from superstition is mainly an idea they used to prop up the British empire and then Nazi ideology.
Forget about it.
Japanese people are actually more superfuturistic and technological than we are and they are not christians at all.
Point taken about European chauvenism/racism. Also that I'm of the vernacular (superficial), not of the exalted few. But I'm really sorry that you don't have a word for what I'm trying to talk about, when you reject mine. Yah, "Divinity" does carry the baggage of deity, but I was endeavoring to distinguish the two -- divinity without deity.
I really get the feeling, Thomas, that you've settled upon a philosphical stand that, as all such are, is arguable, but you don't admit argument. You are speaking in terms of right and wrong, stupid and wise, ignorant and informed, when its simply all about an arbitrary decision you've made, through which filter you're judging the validity of what others have to say. That's fine. We're all like that. Except you, right? You're SPECIAL.
At the end of each segment, a menu appears from which the next segment may be chosen.
I'm here examining my inclination to agree that Christianity had a role in developing Scientific inquiry and methodology.... And certainly the holes exist.
In some respects, I'm thinking specifically of Calvinism and Lutheranism, each with its own emphasis of how Grace is accomplished. Calvinism into occult forensic edict, Lutherism into tangible actions with intangible influence. Both sought authority outside of institutions.
Its a big oversimplification, but Calvinism seemed biased toward natural philosophy as where God's unmediated authority could be discovered. And Lutheranism seemed biased toward seeking tangible evidence of God's intercession in the affairs of men. When you expect the direction of your curiousity to affirm, and not refute your bias, you can do plenty that will end up biting you in the ass, but free posterity from that same bias.
But I also think of monotheism as relief from death cults and fertility cults of old. The first steps away from superstitions regarding afterlife and offendable/appeasable unknown forces affecting the harvest.
But that didn't lead to a Jewish Pythagorus or Euclid or Homer... this is true. Perhaps surplus wealth is all there is to it. Brief golden ages where the best and brightest have the patronage of the rich and ruthless to exercise creativity and curiosity. And then of course, there's military patronage, eg archimedes.
Just an afterthought... The kind of books I like to read are exemplified the Boorstein's "Creators" and "Discoverors" and his America series. It gets into these questions of what motivates and enables things such as how we measure time and organize curriculum and such. But in an age where stars can be a window into destiny, and therefore an object of intense study, is religious curiosity not a good portion of what motivates discovery? Religious certainty is the enemy... as, I guess, is areligious certainty or complacency.
Did Thomas disappear from the DC staff list? And his posts from the blog? That's disappointing. Glad to see his comments to other posts remain. He's got an interesting perspective, especially when it comes to unspoken agendas (racism and the fiction of science as a Western invention). I hope the hiatus is temporary.
BobCMU76, yes he did. He deleted his posts and then deleted his name. We had a dispute about his recent post where he called on Bible publishers to stop making Bibles. I argued with him that such a call makes no more sense than for Christians to call on us to stop writing. Rather than clearing up any misconceptions I migh've had about his post or in showing me where I was wrong he quit. That's his perogative and I wish him well. He has a blog and you know his name.
I thought the whole ban the Bible was a bit tongue in cheek, and am sorry to have missed the later comments there. If I had subscribed to the comments, which I tend to forget to do, I'd have them.
Censorship is not how to eradicate nonsense. Nonsense feeds on the log-rolling affirmation of a closed community, where censored works retreat to.
But I read the message as a positive one... give each kid one of those $200 laptops with the handcrank power. Wire the third world with broadband. And let folks access the Bible and whatever else freely. Christian charity, charity in general, is probably best accomplished through information infrastructure, if dissemination of the Gospel is the object. Fearing whatever else might be disseminated in the process betrays a lack of faith.
I think Thomas aspires to be an author of yet another book challenging the claims and institutions of Christianity. I look forward to seeing it published. I'll definitely watch for the name.
Now back to our regular programming.... Shermer had an interesting point about amputees. I sure don't have the faith to pray that my diabetic friend get his foot back, though I don't hesitate to pray that he get his sugar under control. But praying for the possible guides me to perhaps being a participant in achieving the possible. Praying for things to happen, that one has never before seen happen sort of goes against what Jesus taught about how to pray....
And aside, here --- I'm uncomfortable with the notion of a God who answers prayer, though I'm confident He does....
Jesus asked us to imagine asking a neighbor for a favor (to the point of making a pest of yourself until he gives in), or a father for a present. Such requests and reasonalble expectations of a response confine themselves to the possible.
But it would be kinda nice to live in a world where occasionally some deity would grant the impossible. That would sure demonstrate that such a deity exists. But imagine what would follow, with respect to requests. We'd become a people pre-occupied with the gimme's even more than we now are.
Miracles involving the impossible, I guess, are gratuitous. It reminds me of teen anxieties about sex. Mine, at least.
Yah, he did say that, Scott, and that genetic science might find a means to extend that ability where nature neglected to.
Did Joshua pray to halt the sun? Moses to part the Red Sea? Mary to have a baby?
Of course, we believe such things never happened, except maybe Mary giving birth. But I don't go around praying for time miracles because I overslept, or dry land miracles because getting to the bridge adds 60 miles to a crow's flight path, or for a grandchild... well, I do pray for a grandchild, but through the given "means of grace".
But I don't go around praying for time miracles because I overslept, or dry land miracles because getting to the bridge adds 60 miles to a crow's flight path, or for a grandchild... well, I do pray for a grandchild, but through the given "means of grace".
But it's the It's the context that makes these requests gratuitous, not their scale. Asking God, to stop time so you're not 5 minutes late for an new client meeting or drying up a river to conveniently saving a few miles in travel is like using a flamethrower to light a cigarette.
However, there are situations in which time and distance can make dramatic difference; such as he need to reach a hospital or scene of a plane or bus crash, building fire, etc. Even a few extra minutes can be the difference between life and death.
18 comments:
This is the first of ten parts which can all be found on YouTube.
In part 4 around the 6:40 marker Lennox said "science cannot tell us...whether that the resurrection of Jesus is impossible. To decide whether it happened or not is a matter of history."
Telling isn't this? In the first place, he demands that science must show something to be impossible. Actually, science can do this with the scientific method since science qua science assumes a natural methodology--a natural presumption--and as such a scientist must conclude a resurrection is impossible by those standards. But even if science cannot show the existence of a miracle working God is impossible because such an entity might be beyond the scope of scientific methodology, Lennox must agree that such a thing is extremely improbable, otherwise why has there been no other miraculous event in the history of mankind?
Secondly, Lennox believes Jesus resurrected because of historical evidence. What he and other believers must do is to pit scientific evidence, which shows us that is it is impossible by virtue of scientific investigations to conclude Jesus resurrected, against historical evidence. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who has deeply studied what historical studies can or cannot show about non-supernatural claims of the past knows that affirming what actually took place in the past is mostly a series of good guesses, and that's it. Some guesses are much better than others, of course. They know that different, alternative, historical conclusions are always possible if for no other reason than that the evidence was suppressed, destroyed or lost. We also know that even in today's world every scientifically literate person knows to be skeptical of any present-day miraculous claim. So how much more is it the case that we should be skeptical about any so-called miracle claim in the historical past.
I'll go with scientific evidence every single time over historical claims.
In answer to the question at the beginning of part 5 about what would convince Shermer to believe, I have responded to that question here.
Shermer puts the case very well, and he's pretty funny too: "what do you get when you cross an atheist with a Jehovah's Witness? Someone who knocks on your door for no reason at all".
I've almost learned to hate philosophy because of arguments similar to those used by Prof. Lennox. For example, he states things like, "Science cannot PROVE anything. We cannot even prove the universe exists." While these philosophers typically are acutely aware of the scientific method and how it attempts to valid hypotheses or theories, they prey on the ignorant and their misunderstanding of scientific theory. It is true that when we test a hypothesis data is not used to "prove" or "disprove" the hypothesis, but rather data rejects or fails to reject the hypothesis. However, what people like Prof. Lennox are doing is failing to explain that science can help us what to think through the weight of the evidence overall. What does the weight of the evidence tell us? That there is not one bit of natural evidence known for the existence of God.
Well, I've pretty much watched the whole hour and half. Nothing new under the sun. Didn't catch Lennox on the issue Toby brought up, but it's pretty much agreed, I think, that the scientific method can produce overwealming confidence, but cannot produce certainty.
I tend to define "divinity" as that which orders the universe. And I challenge anyone to reject divinity by that definition. What Shermer is saying is that he's chose to believe that divinity lacks volition... its an automaton. I think it's valid to call that a faith proposition. And I'm pretty confident that regular forces prevail. So many atheists seem to insist they ought not, that God ought have a hand in everything. You can't put Baby in a corner.
Lennox speaks of Christianity as a force in bringing us toward confidence in the regularity of Divinity... as a precursor to science. That's because it was not arguing against atheism at the time of its birth, but against superstition and the predatory priesthood. It seems Christianity has become a vessel of the same, especially when the reactionary elements within come to prevail and become the public face of the faith.
Bobcmu: Let me say something about "I tend to define "divinity" as that which orders the universe. And I challenge anyone to reject divinity by that definition."
What you call "order" is entirely subjective. Maybe when you look out at your window you see a sort of regularity and repetition and things happening over and over the way they always have. That is a subjective take on "The Universe".
What is "The Universe" about which you are speaking? It is an idea. of course, therefore, you would see the order of which you are speak, since when you talk about "The Universe" you are implicitly talking about The realm of Lawlike Changes of Your Familiar Perception.
What you are calling "The Universe" is probably more closely related to the more recent philosophical idea of "Nature".
Notice that "Nature" is derived from a latin word. The concept of Nature is in fact a very recent invention in philosophy, definitely something that comes into the History of Thought in any serious way the last few hundred years with the invention of Scientific Method. Nature is the realm of lawlike change, where the events that are studied via scientific methodology are studied. What you are calling "The Universe" is probably, though I can't be sure, something like a bastardization of that philosophical notion.
It is important to keep in mind that early Christians did not have a concept of "Nature". Even today, most ordinary people have a very vague notion of Nature as being somehow connected to The Outdoors.
Early Christians thought of themselves in contrast to "The World". The World, as this phrase is used in the Bible, is not what we call "Nature". The World is already The Realm of Evil, where people who do not believe in god live and work. Christians live in The World but are not of The World.
There is no evidence at all that any Biblical writer had the slightest idea of anything like "Nature". Even wind and waves and earthquakes and suchlike were connected to the Spirit Realm.
It has taken centuries of intense intellectual effort to articulate the concept of Nature that we are even now only barely acquainted with. Nature is the realm of physical law. Nature is a space where cause and effect have a certain structure. Etc Etc.
For the Bible writers the idea of Nature would not have made any sense, because God lives everywhere and in everything and he makes all of the things that we think of as "natural" phenomena happen.
So, the order that you see in "The Universe" is a fiction.
Leave it to a mathematician to get all picky about nomenclature. Would Godel have said what you just did, Thomas? He seemed more a proponent of the reality of the imaginary than of the fiction of the sensory.
Anyhow... agreeing what words mean does facilitate communication, but when departure is made from plain language, the communication becomes a bit clubby, cliquey. I do pick up the sense I think you're trying to convey, that a self-regulating system is a novel discovery in human history.
The spheres were once fixed to the firmanent and the planets drawn by charioteers and fat cheeked cloud beings blew winds from the four corners of the flat earth. And whether animated by a pantheon of beings much like us, or by the edict of a single being much like us, "Divinity" was an active and willful participant in the motion about us.
So when did we begin to presume regularity? And when did we begin to regard that regularity as the nature of divinity, as opposed to personality?
I happen to agree with Lennox that Christianity was instrumental in that progression from superstition toward science.
bobcmu:
You have a really superficial understanding of Nature, The Universe and hence the things into which scientific research is being carried out. "Divinity" of any kind has vanished from the equation entirely.
But what I like most is your historical assertion at the end about the relation of Christianity to science.
Greek mathematicians in antiquity were entirely Pagan, so would you like to celebrate the Pagan contributions to Geometry? What do you say we celebrate the Pagan origins of the Pythagorean Theorem, which is a piece of mathematics we teach to children? Or, suppose we celebrate the Arabic, i.e. Muslim, origins/development of Algebra (a subject whose name is actually derived from the name of a particular Arab mathematician)? Or perhaps you would like to relate the notion of Abacus computability to the humble abacus, invented by the Chinese, who were not in any way Christian?
So, what, about the development of science or the naturalistic worldview is particularly indebted to Christians? The Christians have almost uniformly been the problem here.
Anyway, Nazi scientists are the only people who ever really trumpeted the supposedly "Christian" debt of the sciences, which was just a racist way of saying European civilization is superior to the rest of the world.
When you help yourself to that discourse of how Christianity is a part of curing the world of superstition you are actually participating in a racist/imperialistic discourse wherein you are actually arguing for the superiority of Europe over the rest of the world. Research it. That whole idea of christian science liberating the world from superstition is mainly an idea they used to prop up the British empire and then Nazi ideology.
Forget about it.
Japanese people are actually more superfuturistic and technological than we are and they are not christians at all.
Point taken about European chauvenism/racism. Also that I'm of the vernacular (superficial), not of the exalted few. But I'm really sorry that you don't have a word for what I'm trying to talk about, when you reject mine. Yah, "Divinity" does carry the baggage of deity, but I was endeavoring to distinguish the two -- divinity without deity.
I really get the feeling, Thomas, that you've settled upon a philosphical stand that, as all such are, is arguable, but you don't admit argument. You are speaking in terms of right and wrong, stupid and wise, ignorant and informed, when its simply all about an arbitrary decision you've made, through which filter you're judging the validity of what others have to say. That's fine. We're all like that. Except you, right? You're SPECIAL.
This is the first of ten parts which can all be found on YouTube.
A search on "Michael Schermer" Lennox returns no hits. URLs are nice.
At the end of each segment, a menu appears from which the next segment may be chosen.
I'm here examining my inclination to agree that Christianity had a role in developing Scientific inquiry and methodology.... And certainly the holes exist.
In some respects, I'm thinking specifically of Calvinism and Lutheranism, each with its own emphasis of how Grace is accomplished. Calvinism into occult forensic edict, Lutherism into tangible actions with intangible influence. Both sought authority outside of institutions.
Its a big oversimplification, but Calvinism seemed biased toward natural philosophy as where God's unmediated authority could be discovered. And Lutheranism seemed biased toward seeking tangible evidence of God's intercession in the affairs of men. When you expect the direction of your curiousity to affirm, and not refute your bias, you can do plenty that will end up biting you in the ass, but free posterity from that same bias.
But I also think of monotheism as relief from death cults and fertility cults of old. The first steps away from superstitions regarding afterlife and offendable/appeasable unknown forces affecting the harvest.
But that didn't lead to a Jewish Pythagorus or Euclid or Homer... this is true. Perhaps surplus wealth is all there is to it. Brief golden ages where the best and brightest have the patronage of the rich and ruthless to exercise creativity and curiosity. And then of course, there's military patronage, eg archimedes.
Just an afterthought... The kind of books I like to read are exemplified the Boorstein's "Creators" and "Discoverors" and his America series. It gets into these questions of what motivates and enables things such as how we measure time and organize curriculum and such. But in an age where stars can be a window into destiny, and therefore an object of intense study, is religious curiosity not a good portion of what motivates discovery? Religious certainty is the enemy... as, I guess, is areligious certainty or complacency.
Did Thomas disappear from the DC staff list? And his posts from the blog? That's disappointing. Glad to see his comments to other posts remain. He's got an interesting perspective, especially when it comes to unspoken agendas (racism and the fiction of science as a Western invention). I hope the hiatus is temporary.
BobCMU76, yes he did. He deleted his posts and then deleted his name. We had a dispute about his recent post where he called on Bible publishers to stop making Bibles. I argued with him that such a call makes no more sense than for Christians to call on us to stop writing. Rather than clearing up any misconceptions I migh've had about his post or in showing me where I was wrong he quit. That's his perogative and I wish him well. He has a blog and you know his name.
I thought the whole ban the Bible was a bit tongue in cheek, and am sorry to have missed the later comments there. If I had subscribed to the comments, which I tend to forget to do, I'd have them.
Censorship is not how to eradicate nonsense. Nonsense feeds on the log-rolling affirmation of a closed community, where censored works retreat to.
But I read the message as a positive one... give each kid one of those $200 laptops with the handcrank power. Wire the third world with broadband. And let folks access the Bible and whatever else freely. Christian charity, charity in general, is probably best accomplished through information infrastructure, if dissemination of the Gospel is the object. Fearing whatever else might be disseminated in the process betrays a lack of faith.
I think Thomas aspires to be an author of yet another book challenging the claims and institutions of Christianity. I look forward to seeing it published. I'll definitely watch for the name.
Now back to our regular programming.... Shermer had an interesting point about amputees. I sure don't have the faith to pray that my diabetic friend get his foot back, though I don't hesitate to pray that he get his sugar under control. But praying for the possible guides me to perhaps being a participant in achieving the possible. Praying for things to happen, that one has never before seen happen sort of goes against what Jesus taught about how to pray....
And aside, here --- I'm uncomfortable with the notion of a God who answers prayer, though I'm confident He does....
Jesus asked us to imagine asking a neighbor for a favor (to the point of making a pest of yourself until he gives in), or a father for a present. Such requests and reasonalble expectations of a response confine themselves to the possible.
But it would be kinda nice to live in a world where occasionally some deity would grant the impossible. That would sure demonstrate that such a deity exists. But imagine what would follow, with respect to requests. We'd become a people pre-occupied with the gimme's even more than we now are.
Miracles involving the impossible, I guess, are gratuitous. It reminds me of teen anxieties about sex. Mine, at least.
Miracles involving the impossible, I guess, are gratuitous.
However, as Shermer indicated, the re-growth of limbs already occurs in nature. As such, it's not a "impossibility."
If we exclude the re-growth of limbs, what else would you consider an miracle of impossible scale?
Yah, he did say that, Scott, and that genetic science might find a means to extend that ability where nature neglected to.
Did Joshua pray to halt the sun? Moses to part the Red Sea? Mary to have a baby?
Of course, we believe such things never happened, except maybe Mary giving birth. But I don't go around praying for time miracles because I overslept, or dry land miracles because getting to the bridge adds 60 miles to a crow's flight path, or for a grandchild... well, I do pray for a grandchild, but through the given "means of grace".
But I don't go around praying for time miracles because I overslept, or dry land miracles because getting to the bridge adds 60 miles to a crow's flight path, or for a grandchild... well, I do pray for a grandchild, but through the given "means of grace".
But it's the It's the context that makes these requests gratuitous, not their scale. Asking God, to stop time so you're not 5 minutes late for an new client meeting or drying up a river to conveniently saving a few miles in travel is like using a flamethrower to light a cigarette.
However, there are situations in which time and distance can make dramatic difference; such as he need to reach a hospital or scene of a plane or bus crash, building fire, etc. Even a few extra minutes can be the difference between life and death.
Would you still consider these cases gratuitous?
Post a Comment