Miracles, Pt. 2

Chapter 2 of Miracles is concerned with the distinction between Naturalism and Supernaturalism. A naturalist sees everything as "part of the whole", that nothing exists beyond what can be called "natural". Everything that is, is "going on of its own accord" (p. 11).

The definitions are further established, but it is to understand that for the naturalist, there is but one nature, in which all things can be understood. And for the supernaturalist, there is some thing or "One Thing" in which all things find their meaning, their direction, their purpose and their creation. There is, for the supernaturalist, some thing that exists in and of itself; it exists because it exists, and all things find the reason for their own existence in the One Thing.

This can be understood as Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, the uncreated creator, the necessary, the Alpha and Omega, the God of the Universe.

Believing that in nature there is no reason for existence at all, and that nature cannot explain itself (is not self-existent), there must be a necessary being that causes all things. That nature exists, or that any law or condition in nature exists cannot account for necessity, only contingency, and a limited one without first causal properties.

If naturalism is all there is, then miracles are necessarily impossible. But that supernaturalism is possible is still no proof of the probability or certainty of miracles. God may very well never interfere or miraculously intervene.

"Our first choice, therefore, must be between Naturalism and Supernaturalism" (p. 16).

Miracles, Pt. 1

Where else would I start on my question about miracles but C.S. Lewis' Miracles?

Miracles always seemed to me like the kind of thing Christians would abandon quite readily in the face of any real questioning for fear of sounding dogmatic, inept or plagued by lunacy. Take the exchange in Bill Maher's Religulous, where the blundering store-owner who claims miracles have changed his life (but is apparently unable to think of any) is dismissed right out with Maher's laughing retort that miracles are only miracles if you call them that, otherwise they are coincidences or happy predictions or less.

The problem lies in being able to say something miraculous happened without being the hapless strawman the naturalist wants you to be so that he might draw his sword and valiantly and condescendingly lay waste to your foolish conclusions.

What C.S. Lewis does is to start from scratch. First and foremost, "The question whether miracles occur can never be answered simply by experience... Our senses are not infallible. If anything extraordinary seems to have happened, we can always say that we have been the victims of an illusion. If we hold a philosophy which excludes the supernatural, this is what we always shall say. What we learn from experience depends on the kind of philosophy we bring to experience" (p. 7, emphasis mine).

Kant began his Critique of Pure Reason noting that while all knowledge begins with experience, it does not therefore necessarily arise from it. It is possible, and indeed a necessary condition that certain knowledge comes before certain experience. One need not see a specific object fall to know that all unsupported objects fall. The general rule is learned perhaps by experience, but the truth of a specific instance can be known a priori, necessarily. It is to say, then, that where the empiricist would deny miracles on the grounds of experience only, there is a fundamental ignorance of the nature of knowledge. For this reason, Lewis dismisses the dismissal of the possibility of miracles in terms of experience alone. A proper philosophy must first be constructed to deal with the problem squarely.

Furthermore, one cannot begin with history, says Lewis, "For if [miracles] are impossible, then no amount of historical evidence will convince us... history can never convince us that a miracle occurred" (p. 8). Again, to write miracles off as impossible beforehand makes any other proof or likelihood categorically impossible.

Reading Biblical accounts of miracles is insufficient outside of the philosophical or logical possibility of miracles. So then, "It is no use going to the texts until we have some idea about the possibility or probability of the miraculous. Those who assume that miracles cannot happen are merely wasting their time by looking into the texts; we know in advance what results they will find for they have begun by begging the question" (p. 9).

Growth

In his Kingdom Triangle, J.P. Moreland suggests the importance of growing intellectually and increasing confidence in God and truth. An more worthy venture hardly comes to mind. His first of three ways toward this end is to,

"Be ruthless in assessing the precise nature and strength of what you actually believe and develop a specific plan of attack for improvement" (p. 133).

His suggestion is to make lists of things that you believe, or don't believe, and the degree to which either is as it is. Furthermore, and what interests me most, write down questions you cannot answer, but would like to. This is something I will be doing here, and I hope that anyone who reads it may offer insight if they have it. Not slogans or cliches, but knowledge and understanding.

Here then, are 10 questions I shall seek to understand better than I do:

1. In what ways does Christianity differ from early Mediterranean religions, and why should it be seen as anything other than a copycat religion stemming from a Judaism stolen from an Egyptian heresy?

2. What makes me think that prayer works, or in what ways do I believe in prayer? Is it just for us? Does God listen or care? How should one pray; how should one not pray?

3. What sort of political ideology is most compatible with the life of Jesus and the prescriptions laid out for us by scripture? Should we care? And if so, what policies ought we care most about and which might we appropriately shun? What, specifically, should we believe about gay rights, abortion, war, democracy, capitalism, animal rights, social justice, poverty, trade, terrorism, the military, foreign policy, Israel, or taxes?

4. Who wrote the Bible, and who canonized it? How do the different versions differ, and which one is most accurate and why?

5. What is the appropriate response of Christians concerning the end of the world, the second coming of Christ, the Antichrist and the mark of the beast, and the book of Revelations?

6. What are the prevailing theories that leading Christians hold concerning Evolution and Creation? How do Christians either combat the overwhelming evidence for evolution or how do they reconcile evolution with a belief in the inerrancy of the word of God and any particular notions of the importance of creation? Is theistic evolution tenable or too weak? What are Darwinian responses to the problems raised by specified complexity and the non viability of transitional forms?

7. Are miracles a violation of natural laws?

8. Why is naturalism, or scientific naturalism, not a more reasonable approach to the difficult questions of existence, being, morality, etc? And isn't the appeal to God on difficult issues a mere cop out or default position which is destined for embarrassment given the possibility of finding natural causes for otherwise-imagined God-based answers? Does naturalism escape the dogmatic snares of religion?

9. What is the most appropriate Christian response to Post-Modernism and relativism? What about the Emerging Church?

10. What do I do with the doctrines of predestination? What do I believe about Calvinism? Which points do I accept; which do I deny? What does scripture say about grace and works, and what are the current leading positions on the debate? What does free will mean? Is there a limit to God's sovereignty? Has he given us full reign over our choices? Doesn't he know our answers anyways? Is God waiting on us to decide anything?

There are many others, of course, but these are most troublesome to me, and most pressing. So, it is my intention to read up, and to get bits and pieces of answers and insights wherever I can. If you read this (Jen, Nick, Andy, Ashley, Reuben, whomever), perhaps you have questions of your own, or perhaps you can help me with mine.

Ok? Ready... break.

Furthermore on Knowledge...

"Our religion is a religion of knowledge, not private faith, and we must teach people the ins and outs of knowledge as part of the recovery of our heritage as the sons and daughters of God."
J.P. Moreland, Kingdom Triangle, p. 130

Knowledge is a great treasure, but there is one thing higher than knowledge, and that is understanding... To make sense of information - to understand it - one has to put it into fruitful relationship with other information, and grasp the meaning of that relationship; which implies finding patterns, learning lessons, drawing inferences, and as a result seeing the whole. This task - achieving understanding - is par excellence the task of philosophy.
A.C. Grayling, The Mystery of Things, p. 1

This is precisely what it is to have a Christian worldview: To have knowledge of Christianity and its rich cultural and intellectual heritage, of the Bible, and of God, and to apply it to the whole of one's life. This must be the responsibility of anyone who believes Christianity offers not just salvation, but truth about the world and hope for it found nowhere else.

J.P. Moreland On Skepticism and Knowledge

[I]f the skeptic doesn't offer a reason for his skepticism (and just keeps asking "How do you know?" each time the particularist makes a knowledge claim), his skepticism can be ignored because it is not a substantive position or argument. If, however, his skepticism is the result of an argument, then this argument must be reasonable before it can be held as a serious objection against knowledge. However, if we did not know some things, we could not reasonably doubt anything (e.g., the reason for doubting my senses now is my justified belief that they have, or at least may have, misled me in the past). Unbridled skepticism is not a rationally defensible position, and it cannot be rationally asserted and defended without presupposing knowledge.

Kingdom Triangle, p. 125

In the Name of Progression

There was a moment, when tears mounted cautiously behind eyelids and signs and t-shirts proclaiming His eminence waived though the air, when I realized something else was happening besides just the vociferous announcement of the coming One. That the subject of the unadulterated and unmitigated fervor was anything less than immortal made the scene unsettling. That this was in support of a man--any man--resonated deeply within me that the ground on which they were treading was shaky at best and entirely destructive at worst.

Activity in the political process was escorted out as far too timid a stance when these followers decided the better response was unrestricted allegiance. This was not brought about by patriotic possibilities or any sense of political ideology, but by a character. What is typically shouted down as dangerous--the dogmatic adherence to ideology--became the beacon of hope and the wellspring of life as soon as the ideology took the form of an ideologue.

That was 2 months ago. But last night the world watched as the tears bound audaciously over eyelids with a disheartening lack of trepidation. The emotion of the faithful took hostage the reason of the individual, leaving a tearful horde in its wake. Whatever part of me understands the emotion of overturning a racial barrier in this country is still subject to the knowledge of what has really happened.

To those who feel a sense of vindication, however slight, that they accomplished what their ancestors could not, I celebrate with you. Humans have within them the desire to take control of their lot; to prevail over the oppression of their people. But to exercise ones intrinsic and inalienable yearning on the platitudes and campaign promises of a man to whom you will henceforth have no connection with or control over is to watch ones dreams set sail for edge of the world. I feel a tremendous amount of pity for the poor, the defeated, the destitute and the disillusioned who, in their moment of desperation, have cast the hopes and fears of a dying world onto a man who has promised everything. The history books record this trend as often as any theme written or imagined; to the hurting and innocent, my compassion; to the ignorant and complicit, my disdain.

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. - C.S. Lewis