The idea that science disproves the possibility of miracles is, IMHO, extremely misguided. Science is able to confirm that certain things are testable and repeatable, that is, empirically verifiable in the present. Miracles, by nature, are none of these things. For example, today as I rode home on the bus I glanced out the window as the bus came to a stop. To my surprise I saw a rabbit sitting on the grass beside the road. I had never seen a rabbit here before (a fairly built-up area along a heavily trafficked road). This event is still not testable (you’ll have to take my word for it that I observed a rabbit earlier today) and not repeatable (even if we were to get on the same bus, drive along the same road, etc, the circumstances could never be exactly the same) and yet the event really did occur. There is no reason to claim that this was a miraculous event, but even here science cannot test whether this mundane event occurred.

Therefore it’s no surprise that science has not (cannot) confirm (or disprove) the miraculous. Richard R. Purtill notes in his essay “Defining Miracles” (also part of the aforementioned book) that scientists “tend to confine their investigations to the ordinary course of nature and to ignore such exceptions as might be made to the course of nature by God, since exceptions brought about by personal agency cannot be predicted from a study of what normally happens”.

Trying to test whether a supposed miraculous event occurred in history using the scientific method is sort of like trying to determine whether a banana is tasty by sticking it in your ear and listening to it. It’s inappropriate methodology. There’s nothing wrong with the scientific method for testing natural phenomenon. However a miracle is not natural, and therefore it is misguided to dismiss, say, the resurrection by appealing to science that shows that people rising from the dead is impossible. Of course we observe that dead people stay dead, and that’s entirely the point. This wasn’t lost on first century people either: Jesus’ resurrection was a big deal because people knew that dead people are supposed to stay dead.

This does not mean that science has no part in examining the truth claims of miracles, but only that as unique events in history, a miracle claim is more properly investigated as history rather than science.

Further reading: The Facts Concerning the Resurrection: Don’t believe the New Testament is a reliable historical source? I’d argue that the NT is historically reliable, but try let’s throwing out most of what it contains, and only focus on facts agreed upon by the vast majority of scholars, Christian or not. What we find might surprise you!

That particular question could be addressed by appealing to God’s transcendent knowledge and so forth. However, my answer to Dawkins’ inquiry would’ve differed from McGrath’s response. I might have said something like this … well, if I was quick enough to respond somewhat articulately in the heat of the moment, that is:

No, I don’t think we can say that God saved that one child. Neither can we say that God did NOT save that one child. While God has the power to supersede the natural order, unless there is evidence that He has done so in a particular situation we should not automatically conclude that He has done so. In this hypothetical scenario, there just isn’t enough information given to make that decision. The issue we’re really talking about here is whether a certain event was caused by miraculous intervention by God or not. I would not claim that God miraculously intervened unless the context of the event supported this conclusion.

A similar example of this came up earlier in their discussion, regarding the issue of Jesus’ resurrection. If claims existed that Karl Marx had been raised from the dead, these claims would differ from the resurrection accounts because (among other reasons!) there was in the first century socio-religious context present to make sense of the meaning of Jesus’ resurrection. It was not simply a curious event that had no greater meaning; it was in fact triumphantly meaningful.

Of course, McGrath’s reply that it is right and proper to be thankful for the blessings we receive is correct; however I would just be more hesitant to say that God had worked a miracle in a particular situation.

Quantum physicists tell us the Universe emerged from thought! (Page 15)

I admit my knowledge of quantum physics is sorely lacking … is this statement accurate? If so, what exactly does it mean? I know what it means in “The Secret” context, but what does it mean in the world of quantum physics (if anything)? (I’m not trying to be a smart-ass by the way, this is a serious question!)

I’ll post some thoughts on the content of The Secret as I get farther in the book. For those who haven’t heard of the book, it’s basically the best-selling New Age repackaging of the 1952 book The Power of Positive Thinking. Available via Amazon, eBook version from eBooks.com (this is the version I got) or your local bookseller. I’m reading it because I’m writing one of my research papers on it. My initial impression is that the power of positive thinking stuff is generally good, but the “thought magnet” stuff and the implication that thoughts create reality is simply unnecessary at best. [Edit: As I read further into the book, I'm becoming more increasingly concerned. I think this book could actually be harmful.]

One raw winter night a farmer heard an irregular thumping sound against his kitchen storm door. He went to a window and watched as tiny, shivering sparrows, attracted to the evident warmth inside, beat in vain against the glass.

Touched, the farmer bundled up and trudged through fresh snow to open the barn door for the struggling birds. He turned on the lights and tossed some hay in the corner. But the sparrows, which had scattered in all directions when he emerged from the house, hid in the darkness, afraid.

The man tried various tactics to get them into the barn. He laid down a trail of Saltine cracker crumbs to direct them. He tried circling behind the birds to drive them to the barn. Nothing worked. He, a huge, alien creature, had terrified them; the birds couldn’t comprehend that he actually desired to help. The farmer withdrew to his house and watched the doomed sparrows through a window. As he stared, a thought hit him like lightning from a clear blue sky: If only I could become a bird – one of them – just for a moment. Then I wouldn’t frighten them so. I could show them the way to warmth and safety.

At the same moment, another thought dawned on him. He grasped the reason Jesus was born. (As told by Paul Harvey)

As a parable (a simple story told to communicate a larger idea) this story isn’t perfect; any parable breaks down if you analyze it to death. But the message behind this parable is very powerful. Could God come near? There’s no reason why, if God is love, that He could not. Did He? If the Christmas claims are real, then yes, God did, and there is indeed a reasonable basis to have hope!

Further reading:

• The Real Christmas Story – Hint: It’s not about busy malls, annoying inlaws or giftwrapped socks.
• Who did Jesus think He was, anyways? – Examines four options to answer the question of Jesus’ identity.
• Is the New Testament text reliable? – Greg Koukl explains why we can trust what the NT text has to tell us about Jesus.
• True or False? Doubters welcome – Jesus is the Son of God; True or False?

Brian McLaren put it this way:

But what if … [a certain viewpoint]‘s preferred type of knowledge is not the appropriate medium of experience? … What if all forms of knowledge, which are appropriate for every single other entity in the universe, are in this one case inappropriate for “knowing” God – since an uncreated God would, by definition, be in a separate category from every created thing? What if, simply because God is in a category apart from every other thing or force or entity in the universe, another medium of experience is required, and what if this medium of experience requires faith of some sort? And what if this sort of faith is not an example of “bad faith” (i.e., make-believe, self-hypnosis, and so forth) and not an unwarranted claim of certainty, but rather an honest kind of good faith, worth of the self-investment of intelligent people, an act of integrity and humility, not escape and self-deception? (McLaren, Finding Faith, p.103)

Again, this isn’t to belittle at all the role of rational, philosophical, historical and scientific inquiry. Those methods are all important as far as they go. But instead I am suggesting that rigidly applying the same methodology used for studying mundane things would be in some sense deficient when considering divine things.

Further reading:

• Finding Faith (book) – I can’t recommend all of Brian McLaren’s books, but this one is one of the best books I’ve ever read.
• It is possible to know about God – A previous blog entry that explores this topic
• Why Bother Searching for God? – Presented by Skeptical Christian
• Jesus: Fact or Fiction? – Scholars in many different fields examine the evidence

I have never studied Aristotle, but apparently he “rejected the idea that God could or would intervene in the order of the natural world” (also from Wikipedia). I don’t see why God (who created the universe and everything in it) couldn’t intervene if He chose to do so. Why would the creator not be able to intervene in His creation? Whether God would intervene is another issue. Certainly God could, but would He? God would not be required to intervene, but if God chose to create the universe, certainly He could choose to intervene in the universe at certain times as His will dictates.

I don’t see any reason why miracles would be impossible if God exists. The question is: Has a legitimate miracle ever actually occurred?

Even after becoming Christian, I was surprised at the powerful argument put forward in William Lane Craig’s book The Son Rises, which details the historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. Craig relies on four facts that both theist and secular historians can agree upon, and builds his case by searching for the best explanation for those facts. Craig has an article online called “Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ” which gives the gist of his argument, but the book is better. Even though it is relatively short (156 pages) it is packed with detail and provides a logical assessment for whether the resurrection happened. This is the most important issue for Christians, since, as Paul said, “if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith” (1 Corinthians 15:14).

» Further inquery:
Video: Dr. Habermas Debates Skeptic Tim Callahan Comparing the Resurrection to Ancient Mythology
PART I (3MB)  |  PART II (4MB)   (WMV format; Right click and “Save As…”)

There are two equal and opposite errors into which [we] can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight. ~ C S Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, Preface

I just watched “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” so that got me thinking about demons, and I remembered the quote above. The question is: Why do we often see so little evidence of demons nowadays? Is it because they don’t exist and we have outgrown old superstitions? Or is it because demons have become so caricatured by modern culture that their reality and relevance has been lost?

Just for the sake of argument, let’s say demons really do exist. Now, say we’re trying to think like one of these demons, intent on deceiving humankind. What better way to achieve that goal than to convince people demons don’t exist? I mean doing so subtly, gradually. It has been said that this is the greatest trick demons have ever played: convincing people that they don’t exist. Consider, assuming again for the sake of argument that demons exist, that I were possessed by a demon today. What would my family likely do, were I do exhibit similar symptoms to Emily Rose in the movie? Likely I would be taken to the hospital, given drugs (which wouldn’t work) and eventually be hauled off to the nuthouse. Regardless of the evidence, a medical problem would be the only one considered. The demon’s tactics would have worked perfectly, and only due to our society’s insistence on pure scientism.

Note: It’s important to keep in mind that Christianity is not at all dualistic. God and the devil are not equals. They are not at equal ends of a scale: God is the scale. Christians believe that God “will remove all of their sorrows, and there will be no more death or sorrow or crying or pain” when, at the proper time, demons and the devil are defeated. (Rev 21:4, NLT)

Back to the movie, I thought that The Exorcism of Emily Rose was pretty good overall. Although I think I could’ve presented a better argument than the defense lawyer did in the movie … and when the priest was on the stand, I wanted to shout “No! Don’t let the prosecution lawyer get away with that! Answer him back like this!”