Atheist Universe: Chapter 7
Initially Posted: January 29, 2007
Contents:
2. Origin of the Universe: Natural or Supernatural?
3. God of the Gaps: Does the Universe Show Evidence of Design?
4. The “Miracle” of Planetary Clockwork
5. The “Miracle” of Life on Earth
6. Can Genesis Be Reconciled with Modern Science?
7. “Miracles” of Christian Perception
9. Christian Fundamentalists and the “Danger” of Internet Porn
10. Was America Really Founded upon Christian Principles?
11. “Intelligent Design”: Christianity’s Newest Cult
7. “Miracles” of Christian Perception:
Towards the beginning of this chapter, Mills writes that emotions do not prove religious doctrines are true. I agree with this view.
Mills spends the majority of this chapter attacking the Christian belief in miracles. Mills objects that for every unexplained good event, there is an unexplained bad event. 1 However, unexplained bad events no more disprove miracles than the existence of evil disproves the existence of good. Also, what standard is Mills utilizing to determine something is bad? If naturalistic Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution is true, and the material universe is all that exists, then there is no immaterial thing known as “bad.”
Mills writes: “A true miracle is, by definition, impossible through natural means—or at least highly improbable. The chances are always greater therefore that the report of the miracle is mistaken in its account of what actually occurred or why it occurred.” 2
This resembles one of David Hume’s arguments against miracles. This objection faces many very serious problems. First, this objection “easily becomes an a priori rejection of all miraculous events, if it is taken too far.” 3 Stephen E. Parrish 4 notes “If one knew atheism were true then one would be completely justified in assigning miracles a very low order of antecedent probability. However, the possibility of miracles cannot be summarily rejected when using them as evidence to decide between some variety of theism and atheism, as that would be begging the question.” Parrish continues: “many philosophers…not only accept a naturalistic or atheistic world-view with its corresponding probability structure, but also take such a viewpoint for granted. Atheism, with its corresponding probability structure, is held to be the neutral and objective viewpoint, rather than one viewpoint among many.” Parrish summarizes later that “one cannot properly speak of the ‘antecedent improbability’ of miracles…In debating between two or more rival views, the truth of one probability structure should not be assumed nor should the a priori antecedent probability of the specific alleged miracle.” Dr. Habermas notes, “If Parrish is correct, the entire program of establishing the likelihood of miracles begs the question by assuming from the outset a prior philosophical position that they are unlikely.” 5
Second, if the theistic God exists, then miracles are possible. As was seen previously, the arguments for God’s existence withstand Mills’ objections.
Third, we lack the necessary information to conclude that miracles are not likely to, or do not occur. George Mavrodes asks, “On what basis should we assign the miracle probability?” Mavrodes argues that our experience of whether or not miracles have occurred is completely irrelevant to the probabilities of miracles and no miracles. The reason is straightforward: Hume’s sample is too small. 6
Fourth, if miracle-like events are observed at present, then this entire objection crashes to the ground. Scientists have occasionally discovered ways to measure and discern a possible correlation between prayer and healing. An interesting study conducted by a physician documented the beneficial effects of prayer on sick patients. Dr. Gary Habermas writes: “Using strict scientific guidelines in a double-blind study, 393 patients in a coronary care unit were the subjects. About half were prayed for over a ten-month period. In twenty-one of the twenty-six categories monitored, patients receiving prayer fared better than those who did not receive prayer. The results were published in Randolph C. Byrd, “Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population,” Southern Medical Journal 81.7 (July 1988): 826-29.” 7
Dr. Norman Geisler relates another medical case study:
“At age fourteen Barbara Cummiskey was perfectly healthy. A year later her hand began to slip as she gripped the gymnastic rings. Doctors were sure she had multiple sclerosis (MS). In the next several years Barbara was ravaged by this crippling disease. Her bodily organs began to malfunction. A catheter was placed in her bladder. Breathing was so difficult that a tracheotomy was performed—cutting a hole in her neck so a respirator could be attached. Her vision worsened to the point of legal blindness. Several surgeries followed, as did three cardiac arrests. Lack of oxygen to her brain resulted in mental confusion.
Through her long ordeal, Barbara turned to God. She prayed simply but repeatedly in childlike prayers. Hearing of her plight, a local Christian radio station urged prayer on her behalf. Nearly 450 cards and letters flooded in to her. On June 7, 1981, two friends were reading cards to her. Barbara heard a voice over her shoulder (not the voice of her friends) saying, ‘My child, get up and walk.’ She had not walked in two years. Her legs were atrophied. Nevertheless, in simple faith she ‘jumped’ out of bed and started down the hall where she met her mother who shouted ‘Calves! You have calves!’ When Barbara met her father downstairs, they danced around the room. Barbara did ballet steps, standing on her toes and leaping.
Barbara’s friend, an occupational therapist, told her, ‘You know, you just wrecked everything I learned in school.’ Barbara is still rejoicing in God’s miraculous healing of her body.” 8
Well-evidenced near-death-experience reports also challenge naturalism. Go here for more background information on the significance of near-death-experiences.
Finally, one genuine miracle would refute this objection.
Thus, Mills should not reject the possibility or probability of miracles a priori.
Mills asserts that we never know how sick a person really was prior to a “medical miracle.” 9 Mills asks “Why couldn’t a man who had had no legs whatever for twenty years suddenly wake up with a brand-new pair?” 10 Well, Barbara Cummiskey’s account is an example of how sick a person was prior to a healing. Further, in a sense, Barbara Cummiskey received “a brand-new pair” of legs since her calve muscles had atrophied, but were suddenly restored.
Mills also claims that the truthfulness of original miracle accounts is “forever untestable and is thus unworthy of serious consideration” 11 if they are handed down from generation to generation, or are secondhand. If testability is one of Mills’ requirements for truth, then he should reject many, if not all, ancient historical events since they are not all testable. Also, strong eyewitness testimony supports the miracle claim of Jesus’ resurrection. Go here for more details. Yet, Mills does not address this evidence.
Mills also repeats his objection to God’s existence based on natural disasters, which I covered previously in this review. Interestingly, Mills writes “Nature does show a degree of underlying order,” 12 but he does not state where he thinks this order originated from.
Mills insinuates that all Christians limit their understanding of the term “miracle” to a positive highly unlikely statistical occurrence. 13 However, Mills does not quote or even reference a Christian scholar/theologian to support this assertion. Dr. Norman Geisler defines a miracle as “a special act of God that interrupts the natural course of events. The Christian conception of the miraculous immediately depends on the existence of a theistic God, which is supported by the cosmological argument, teleological (or design) argument, and moral argument. If the theistic God exists, miracles are possible. If there is a God who can act, then there can be acts of God. The only way to show that miracles are impossible is to disprove the existence of God.” 14 Dr. Geisler also describes the characteristics of miracles, or “acts of God.” “First, miracles have an unusual dimension.” 15 For example, a burning bush that is not consumed by fire is unusual. “Second, miracles have a theological dimension. A miracle is an act of God that presupposes a God who acts. The view that a God beyond the universe created it, controls it, and can interfere in it is theism.
Third, miracles have a moral dimension. They bring glory to God by manifesting his moral character. Miracles are visible acts that reflect the invisible nature of God. No true miracle, then, is evil, because God is good. Miracles by nature aim to produce and/or promote good.
Fourth, miracles have a doctrinal dimension. Miracles in the Bible are connected directly or indirectly with ‘truth claims.’ They are ways to tell a true prophet from a false prophet (Deut. 18:22). They confirm the truth of God through the servant of God (Heb. 2:3-4). Message and miracle go hand-in-hand.
Fifth, miracles have a teleological dimension. Unlike magic, they are never performed to entertain (see Luke 23:8). Miracles have the distinctive purpose to glorify the Creator and to provide evidence for people to believe by accrediting the message of God through the prophet of God.” 16
In short, “A miracle may look like any unusual occurrence, but it has a supernatural cause. It is performed with divine power, according to the divine mind, for a divine purpose, in order to authenticate a divine message or purpose.” 17
The truths implied by the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments for God indicate that He has supernatural power (power beyond that in the natural universe, because He brought the universe into existence), supreme design and purpose, and complete moral purity. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that His acts would display or contain elements of these attributes. So the criteria for true miracles include:
1. An instantaneous beginning of a powerful act, as evidenced by the cosmological argument (the beginning of the universe).
2. Intelligent design and purpose, as evidenced by the teleological argument (the precise design of the universe for the purpose of supporting life, and the specified and complex design of life itself)
3. The promotion of good or right behavior, as evidenced by the moral argument.
With these criteria—instantaneous power, intelligent design, and morality—one can identify want unusual events are true signs from God. Notice that one can obtain these criteria from what they observe in the natural world. The Bible agrees with this assessment by calling events that meet these same criteria miracles. 18
In summary, the arguments for God’s existence supplied above indicate what humans live in a theistic universe. Since this is a theistic universe, only the theistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have ‘made the cut’ of truth to this point. All nontheisms (atheism, polytheism, pantheism, etc.) are built on a false foundation because they are wrong about the existence and nature of God.
Miracles are possible if God exists. If God created the universe out of nothing, the greatest miracle has arguably already occurred, making every other miracle claim in the Bible more believable. God could intervene in the universe He created despite what David Hume, Antony Flew, etc. say.
A true miracle would be an act only God could perform, meaning it would include Godlike characteristics such as supernatural power, intelligent design, and the promotion of moral behavior. Due to his moral nature, we could expect God to communicate his specific purpose to us in more detail. God could use miracles as his sign to confirm to us his special revelation. Used in this way, a miracle is an act of God to confirm a message from God. The next question would be: “Has God used miracles to confirm Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or some other theistic religion, in the past?” One would have to analyze the credibility/reliability of the various holy books/sources associated with each for this step. 19
Thus, it is evident that Mills oversimplifies the Christian view of miracles and the requirements for identifying miracles.
Endnotes:
1. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 160-161.
2. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 163.
3. Gary R. Habermas, The Risen Jesus & Future Hope (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2003), 75.
4. Stephen E. Parrish, God and Necessity: A Defense of Classical Theism (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1997), 156, 172.
5. Gary R. Habermas, The Risen Jesus & Future Hope (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2003), 76.
6. Gary R. Habermas, The Risen Jesus & Future Hope (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2003), 76.
7. Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), 317.
8. Rodney Clapp, “Faith Healing: A Look at What’s Happening,” Christianity Today, 16 December 1983, 16-17 referenced in Norman L. Geisler, Signs and Wonders (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1988), 132.
9. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 161.
10. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 161.
11. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 164.
12. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 162.
13. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 164.
14. Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1999), 450.
15. Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1999), 451.
16. Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1999), 451.
17. Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1999), 451.
18. Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2004), 211.
19. Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2004), 216-217.