Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[BettyG]

For those who do not believe in miracles, I proppse the following for discussion:
from Josh McDowell's book New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p. 359-360
J.W.N. Sullivan says, "that since the publication of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and Planck's endeavors with "black-body radiation," scientists are faced with "the vicissitudes of so-called natural law in an uncharted and unobstructed universe."
James Moore says that "today scientists will admit that no one knows enough about 'natural law' to say that any event is necessarily a violation of it. They agree that an individual's non-statistical sample of time and space is hardly sufficient ground on which to base immutable generalizations concerning the nature of the entire universe. Today, what we commonly term 'natural law' is in fact only our inductive and statistical descriptions of natural phenomena."

John Montgomery denotes that he anti-supernatural position is both "philosophically and scientifically irresponsible." First of all, philosophically: "because no one below the status of god could know the universe so well as to eliminate miracles a priori." Secondly, scientifically: "because in th age of Einsteinian physics (so different from the world of Newtonian absolutes in which Hume formulated his classic anti-miraculous argument) the universe has opened up to all possibilities, 'any attempt to state a "universal law of causation" must prove futile and only careful consideration of the empirical testimony for a miraculous event can determine whether in fact it has or has not occurred."

"But can the modern man accept a "miracle" such as the resurrection? The answer is a surprising one: The resurrection has to be accepted by us just because we are modern men, men living in the Einstein relativistic age. For us, unlike the Newtonian epoch, the universe is not longer a tight safe predictable playing field in which we know all the rules. Since Einstein no modern has had the right to rule out the possibility of events because of prior knowledge of "natural." The only way we can know whether an event can occur is to see whether in fact it has occurred. The problem of "miracles", then. must be solved in the realm of historical investigation, not in the realm of philosophical speculation."

Vincent Taylor warns against too great a dogmatism with regard to the miraculous: "It is far too late today to dismiss the question by saying that "miracles are impossible":; that stage of the discussion is definitely past. Science takes a much humbler and truer view of natural law that was characteristic of former times; we now know that eh "laws of Nature" are convenient summaries of existing knowledge. Nature is not a "closed system," and miracles are not "intrusions" in to an "established order." In the last fifty years we have been staggered too often by discoveries which at one time were pronounced impossible. ... This change of thought does not, of course, accredit the miraculous; but it does mean that, given the right conditions, miracles are not impossible; no scientific or philosophic dogma stand in the way.

[Minimalist]

There is no possibility whatsoever of reconciling science and theology, at least in Christendom. Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn’t. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if he did not, then it is sheer nonsense.

H. L. Mencken

I'll go with the "nonsense" option.

[Dena]

I don't know why you would want to argue that Jesus coming back from the dead could be totally within the norms of "natural law". If that's the case, he isn't special, he isn't god, he didn't do anything anyone else couldn't do. He'd just be a dude who came back to life.

So which is it, is he the god of the universe who rose himself from the dead or is he just the product of the strange universe in which we live?

[Esquilax]

Betty, that view puts us in the position of having to accept every claim, not just the specific theistic ones you want us to. I'll even leave aside the fact that a book from a christian apologist can hardly be considered an objective source of information, and just examine the consequences of what it asks us to do, and the only fair way to operate in this "we don't know everything and the universe is big, and therefore this miracle has a rational basis" mindset is to apply that to every claim: christian claims, muslim claims, hindu and norse claims, every religion, conspiracy theory and raving loon on the street corner. To ask us to accept that only christian miracles are possible is special pleading.

So now what we've got is a world in which we now have to accept a multitude of claims, many contradictory and many that contradict each other... there's absolutely nothing scientific or rational about that. And either way, we need to resolve the contradictions by way of narrowing down the claims made into a set of non-contradictory claims that best comport to the real universe.

How do we do that? Oh yes: evidence!

So, you're left with two choices: either you exist in a universe that makes absolutely no sense at all and certainly doesn't justify belief in any specific religion at all, or you use the actual scientific method to discover the things that actually are real. The latter necessarily means you need to discard this shoulder shrugging "hey, we don't know everything, so I've got to accept this as possible!" mentality.

[littleendian]

The resurrection has to be accepted by us just because we are modern men, men living in the Einstein relativistic age.

No, the possibility of the resurrection has to be accepted, and I do accept that there is a number rapidly approaching but not equal to zero that represents the likelihood that a carpenter was raised from the dead 2000 years ago.

Still, that doesn't mean anything for my life, I would argue the possibility that a meteor hits me on the head as I type this is higher, and so far so good (*looks up*)

[FallentoReason]

Nature is not a "closed system," and miracles are not "intrusions" in to an "established order." In the last fifty years we have been staggered too often by discoveries which at one time were pronounced impossible. ... This change of thought does not, of course, accredit the miraculous; but it does mean that, given the right conditions, miracles are not impossible; no scientific or philosophic dogma stand in the way.

Two different ideas are being meshed into one here. Something previously thought to be impossible isn't and wasn't ever a miracle if it can now be explained; the reason being that, presumably, such an explanation means that we are capable of repeating the event. This is not what a miracle is, which is a one-off and uncommon event.

A miracle could be that a scientist watched lead turn into gold. This could be thought of as impossible and implausible, and hence a miracle, but if an explanation is found, then this "miracle" can be repeated as many times as you like, and then it's like anything else in our everyday lives -- it's not a miracle.

The moral of the story here is that this book is twisting the framework of science in such as way as to create a back door for miracles to enter the realm of science. I don't think so pal!

[downbeatplumb]

The resurrection has to be accepted by us just because we are modern men, men living in the Einstein relativistic age.

No, the possibility of the resurrection has to be accepted, and I do accept that there is a number rapidly approaching but not equal to zero that represents the likelihood that a carpenter was raised from the dead 2000 years ago.

Still, that doesn't mean anything for my life, I would argue the possibility that a meteor hits me on the head as I type this is higher, and so far so good (*looks up*)

Well was he ever dead? what school did the doctor who pronounced him dead go to? was he having an off day?

If someone who you think is dead gets up. The chances are they weren't dead.

[Baalzebutt]

I find this entire post to be rather funny.

You do realize that they are arguing NATURALISTIC explanations for miracles don't you? What they are essentially saying is that just because we can't expalin it doesn't mean there isn't an explaination. This is what we atheists have been saying forever.

Your boys just argued your "miracles" into the neatural, and therefore godless, realm.

Congratulations.

[Drich]

What Minnie said:

I'll go with the "nonsense" option.

What I saw:

[Faith No More]

They should concentrate less on trying to point out that miracles can't generally be proven to be impossible and more on actually demonstrating that a miracle has happened, but they can't circumvent the burden of proof that way.

They're just trying to sneak the resurrection in the back door, but silly Christians, Jesus says the back door is a sin!