Reasonable Faith Book (part 5)

Transcript Reasonable Faith Book (Part 5)

Kevin Harris: Dr. Craig, I am always hearing that something is “a miracle” – it is a miracle that the Dallas Cowboys won the Super Bowl and it’s a miracle that so-and-so survived that explosion and so forth. We kind of throw that term around. You deal with the problem of miracles in your book Reasonable Faith. What do we mean “the problem of miracles?”

Dr. Craig: The problem of miracles would be the problem that a naturalistic worldview wouldn’t allow miracles to occur. By a miracle here one means not just what you explained – a remarkable coincidence or something of that sort. What is meant is an event which lies beyond the productive capacity of nature at some particular time and place.

Kevin Harris: That is why that would make that definition of a miracle rather trivial to say “this amazing coincidence – it was a miracle.” That is not a good definition.

Dr. Craig: Right. Or when people say that every time a child is born it’s a miracle. Well, they are using that in a kind of romantic or emotional sense, but it is not literally a miracle in the sense that it is beyond the productive capacity of nature to do. Nature does that all the time. So a bona fide, genuine miracle would be literally an act of God. It would be something that would require a cause that is supernatural – something that is beyond nature that natural causes alone couldn’t produce. If you are an atheist – if you don’t believe in any supernatural entities – then miracles are impossible. So Christianity is a religion of miracles. We believe in things like the incarnation of Christ, the virgin birth, Jesus’ miracles of healing and multiplying the loaves, and so forth. Then of course the resurrection of Christ. That creates a problem for modern man who doesn’t believe in miracles. How can Christianity be true given all these miraculous elements in it.

Kevin Harris: Is Hume the most famous skeptic against miracles?

Dr. Craig: Quite definitely. David Hume was an 18th century Scottish philosopher. He wrote an essay called “Of Miracles” where he claimed to present a knockdown decisive argument against ever identifying any event as a miracle. Now, Hume didn’t argue that miracles are impossible. He thought, yeah, maybe there is a miracle that might have occurred, but you would never be rational in believing that a miracle has occurred. You could never be a rational person and say, “Yes, this is a miracle.” So on Hume’s view, given any remarkable claim in the past, you should always think that there was a natural explanation for it rather than to believe it was a miracle. What he is saying is miracles cannot be identified as happening. So he is not really arguing that miracles can’t happen. He’s just saying it is irrational to ever believe in miracles. So no one should ever believe in the resurrection of Jesus or that Jesus healed the blind man or believe in the virgin birth. Even if these things took place, it would never be rational to believe that it took place. So no right thinking person could ever believe in miracles, and particularly therefore could never be a Christian.

Kevin Harris: How do you answer Hume? Has he been answered successfully, you think?

Dr. Craig: He has been answered, Kevin. And the interesting thing is that the most successful answers to Hume have not come from Christians. The most successful and important answers have come from agnostic philosophers of science who understand probability theory and understand that Hume’s argument against identifying miracles is fallacious. I am thinking in particular of a book by Professor John Earman who is a Professor of Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh. Earman is an agnostic, he is not a Christian, doesn’t even believe in God, but he recently published a book the title of which is Hume’s Abject Failure. That is how he characterizes Hume’s argument against miracles. He says this argument is not merely a failure, it is an abject failure. That is to say it is a hopelessly bad argument and Earman who is an expert in probability theory shows why Hume’s argument against the probability of any events being a miracle is just mathematically fallacious. [1]Hume didn’t understand probability theory. In Hume’s favor, you have to say at that time when he wrote probability theory wasn’t developed very much. They didn’t understand probabilities. So Hume can be to a certain extent excused for his mistakes. But what is not excusable is the appeal on the part of modern New Testament critics and other skeptics to Hume’s argument in a day and age where we do understand probability theory and Hume’s errors have been patently exposed.

Kevin Harris: So on probability theory then there is nothing to say that miracles aren’t possible?

Dr. Craig: Not only that they are not not possible, but that miracles are not unidentifiable either. Even if a miracle is intrinsically improbable – that it is highly improbable given our background knowledge of the world that this event has occurred – that improbability can be easily overcome by specific empirical evidence that a miracle did take place. So any inherent improbability in a miracle can be easily overcome or outbalanced by the specific evidence that a miracle did take place.

Kevin Harris: Give us an example of that.

Dr. Craig: OK. Let me give a non-miraculous example. Take a report on the evening news that the winning pick in last night’s lottery was 7-2-8-9-4-7-6. Now, when you think about it, that is an event of incredible, incredible improbability. It is so improbable that that very number would be picked – the odds are millions to one that that number would have won the lottery – and yet we believe the evening news’ broadcast about that. Now if you simply consider the probability of that event, you would never believe what the evening news said because that event is so improbable that even if the evening news is reliable 99% of the time, this event is so improbable that you wouldn’t believe that the evening news was correct in recording this. Why do we believe it? Well, simply because the probability that the evening news would have reported that number if it had not been picked is so remote that it counterbalances the improbability of that number itself. If that number had not been picked, what is the probability that the evening news would have reported that specific number? Well, it is extremely low. So the specific evidence in this case overbalances the improbability of the event itself. What this means, Kevin, is that this common sense expression that gets thrown around a lot in free thought circles that “extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence” is simply false. That is demonstrably false. It is not true that extraordinary events require an extraordinary amount of evidence. We believe in enormously improbable events like the winning pick in the lottery all the time on the basis of quite mundane evidence. Now, it is exactly the same in the case of a miracle. In the case of a miracle, it might be highly, highly improbable that this miracle would have occurred but this can be counterbalanced by the specific evidence. Take the resurrection of Jesus. What is the probability that if there were no resurrection that we would have the empty tomb, the postmortem appearances of Jesus, the origin of the disciples’ belief that he was raised. Well, if that is remotely probable – that is highly improbable that if there were no resurrection, you would have all of those things – that just counterbalances any improbability in the resurrection itself. So given the evidence, it can be quite rational to believe in the resurrection of Jesus.

Kevin Harris: Is it the rarity of miracles that makes people skeptical of miracles?

Dr. Craig: I think that is probably it. I think that it is just that they are so infrequent that people are skeptical about miracles. But as Earman points out in his book, frequency alone doesn’t determine probability. He points out that scientists are currently investing millions of dollars and countless hours in nuclear facilities trying to find an event of proton decay which is predicted by subatomic physics. Well, no one has ever observed an event of proton decay. When this is observed, it will be a unique event in the history of mankind. [2] But that doesn’t mean that it has a probability of zero. If you take frequency as your guide to probability it would have zero probability and all this money and effort is being wasted trying to find an event of zero probability. Well, that is just mistaken. You can’t take this kind of simple minded approach to say that frequency determines probability. Now, apply this to the case of the resurrection of Jesus and I think we can see it illustrated there. The resurrection of Jesus is a unique event in history – never before or never since observed. Does that mean it’s highly improbable? Not at all. It might be its very uniqueness that makes it probable that God would do such a thing to vindicate the claims of his Son. God would pick a highly singular event to vindicate the claims of his Son for which he was crucified. So it might be the very uniqueness or rarity of the resurrection that makes it highly probable that this is the way God would vindicate Jesus.

Kevin Harris: We often here “the miracle” of evolution. We hear that from Darwinian evolutionists who themselves say the fact that all these particles got together is somewhat of a miracle. Highly improbable that they would come together?

Dr. Craig: Yeah, well, I think that that is right. The evolution of intelligent life on earth is an event that even evolutionists admit is highly, highly improbable. In fact, John Barrow and Frank Tipler in their book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle say that there is a consensus among evolutionary biologists today that the evolution of intelligent life comparable to ourselves is so improbable that it is unlikely to have occurred on any other planet anywhere in the known universe. So in that sense biological evolution would be a miracle. And the question would be: given the improbability of this event, do we have any good evidence to think that this then has in fact happened? Unfortunately, what the Darwinist says is, “Well, we are here aren’t we? Therefore it must have happened no matter how improbable it was. We are here so it must have happened.” He can only say that by presupposing atheism, that there is no God. If there is no God then yeah it must have happened because here we are. But the theist, or the Christian, wants to say wait a minute though, there is another alternative. Maybe we are here by intelligent design. So in order to show that this biological miracle has occurred, you’d need to give me some kind of evidence to show that it has occurred. So in a sense evolution is a kind of good analogy to the argument for the resurrection of Jesus. In both cases, you are picking an event that seems to be extraordinarily rare and you are asking: does the evidence in this case give us good reason to think that this rare event has actually occurred?

Kevin Harris: The definition that you’ve given us on miracles has some practical application, I think, for Christian life, and that is I think we as believers need to distinguish what is a miracle sometimes. Because we tend to call things a miracle as well. We may pray that God would provide us with some funds, or some money, and then it comes in the mailbox and we say, “It’s a miracle!” Well, that didn’t involve the supernatural. It may have been from God but that would be, what? His providence?

Dr. Craig: I would call it his special providence. But it is not literally a miracle in the sense that it is beyond the productive capacity of natural causes. So I think that we need to have a special category for events like this that I would call special providence. The way I understand those kind of events is through the doctrine of divine middle knowledge. God knew, if I were to pray and he were to set up other circumstances, that some donor would send me the money we need for the ministry just at the time that we are praying for it so that the donation would come in answer to those prayers. So it is all arranged by God but without miraculous intervention. I think the practical benefit of this is that sometimes we don’t have the faith to pray for a miracle. Sometimes it is hard to pray thinking that God is going to intervene in the natural course of the world and produce events which have no natural causes. Sometimes it is hard to pray for a miracle.

Kevin Harris: We resist that. We resist it, it seems.

Dr. Craig: Well, I think that it is hard to pray for that. I mean, for example, if you pray, “Lord, remind someone of this” or “Bring this to his mind,” are you praying that God would produce a neurological miracle in this guy’s brain – that God would cause miraculous firings of the neurons in his brain to make this thought pop into his head? [3]Well, I don’t think that is what we are really praying for. We are praying for a kind of special providence that God, via his middle knowledge, would arrange the circumstances so that something would remind him of this in a quite natural way. And that I can have the faith to pray for. Or even when I don’t have the faith for a miracle, I have the faith to pray for a special providence that God in his foreknowledge would arrange all this knowing that I would pray at this time so that the answer is ready and forthcoming. So I think it does have practical benefits.

Kevin Harris: I often hear the complaint that God doesn’t do any big flashy miracles anymore. Why doesn’t he do a few more Red Sea partings?

Dr. Craig: You know, when you read the Bible you find that miracles don’t occur all the time. We may have that impression but when you look at biblical history the miracles tend to group or cluster around certain key events in salvation history like the exodus, the time of Elijah and Elisha and then the appearance of the Son of God, Jesus, in the Gospels.

Kevin Harris: It wasn’t an everyday occurrence; they were clustered.

Dr. Craig: Exactly, they cluster around these great revelatory acts like the exodus (which is the central act of God’s deliverance in the Old Testament) and then around the incarnation of Christ (the central act of God’s revelation in the New Testament). And in between there are these long centuries of no miraculous activity whatsoever on God’s part. So we shouldn’t get the impression that miracles are something that we ought to just expect to see all the time, especially these kind of giant flashy miracles like the parting of the Red Sea or healing the leaper or multiplying the loaves to the five thousand. I think that these are special acts of God to show his intervention in salvation history in special ways.

Kevin Harris: It is interesting that even the biblical narrative shows that those big ol’ miracles – big flashy spectacular miracles – only went so far in producing relationship with God.

Dr. Craig: Yeah, this is another point that often atheists will say: why doesn’t God do these kind of miracles to convince everybody that he exists? And I think God could do that. He could produce a neon cross in the sky that says, “Jesus Saves” and flashes every evening. He could do those kind of miracles. But, I’m very skeptical that this would produce any kind of lasting heart change in people. That might convince people that, yeah, there is some kind of big supernatural creator out there – some big daddy that has created this neon cross in the sky and so forth. But I don’t think that that would produce in people a love for him or a desire to know and serve him anymore than the Old Testament’s Pillar of Smoke by day and Fire by night produced lasting heart change in the Israelites who saw these evident miracles.

Kevin Harris: I know a lot of people who would resent God putting a big glowing cross and proving his existence because they would be forced to believe in him and then we would all get on the internet and go na na na na na na to them, that kind of a thing. Yeah, it wouldn’t promote the phileo relationship to God. I can see that.

Dr. Craig: I think that it absolutely true. If God’s existence were so evident, say as evident as the existence of the world around us, after a while people would just take it for granted that there is this thing, this being, out there. But that wouldn’t mean that you love him and want to know him and serve him with your whole life and heart. Not at all. Miracles in the Old Testament didn’t do anything to win the heart commitment of the Israelites who saw them. They fell into apostasy with tiresome repetitiveness, over and over again. So I think God, in his wisdom, has chosen a different way – the interior way which is the way of the inner witness of the Holy Spirit which draws us to him in a way that helps us to fall in love with God and fall in love with Christ. Miracles, I don’t think just could do that.

Kevin Harris: Dr. Craig, I guess if God exists then miracles are possible.

Dr. Craig: Right. It all comes back to the existence of God, doesn’t it? If you believe in a creator and designer of the universe who made the natural laws that govern the universe, then obviously such a being could do things that are beyond the productive capacity of nature. [4] So the whole question of the possibility of miracles really gets back to who do you think God is or do you believe there is a God? One of the Australian atheists that I debated when I was in Sydney, Peter Slezak, put it so nicely. He said for a creator of the universe, the odd resurrection would be child’s play. I think that is exactly right. These New Testament scholars who are skeptical of the miracles or resurrection of Jesus have just got too small a God.

Kevin Harris: Dr. Craig, our question of the day: how should Christian students present arguments in the classroom? Do you have some do’s and dont’s here?

Dr. Craig: I am old school in this, Kevin. I think that the professor deserves to be respected by students and therefore students should defer to the professor in terms of his expertise and treat him with the respect that his position warrants. So I do not think that Christian students should see it as their job to sit in that class and try to refute their non-Christian professor. I think that they should learn from him, try to discern and analyze his mistakes, but they should be humble and deferential and respectful in how they deport themselves in the classroom. I think the best thing that Christian students can do with a non-Christian professor who is aggressive is simply asking questions to say, what do you mean by that or what justification or arguments would you offer on behalf of that position? Can you explain that a little bit further? I think those kinds of questions are welcome, they can often be probing and point out weaknesses but they need to be asked with respectfulness and humility.

Kevin Harris: I’ve seen with my own eyes, some well meaning Christians trying to witness for Christ in the classroom actually make spectacles of themselves, being disruptive and so on, being overtly perhaps evangelistic. So by asking questions and what are some other ways that we can perhaps be a good witness for Christ in the classroom?

Dr. Craig: Well, I think you can talk privately with students outside of class. It doesn’t have to be a public attempt to embarrass or refute the professor. It would be much better in study groups or just one-on-one conversations to ask other students what did you think about what he said today and here’s a different perspective on that. [5]