Dialogues on Miracle

Dialogues on Miracle

Robert A. Larmer

foreword by Gary R. Habermas

DIALOGUES ON MIRACLE

Copyright © 2015 Robert A. Larmer. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Wipf & Stock

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

isbn 13: 978-1-62564-816-7

eisbn 13: 978-1-63087-901-3

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

For my children,

Anna, Robb, Jer, and Nome

Foreword

by Gary R. Habermas

Robert A. Larmer is professor and chair of the Philosophy Department at the University of New Brunswick, in Canada. Bob is a longtime specialist and contributor to philosophical discussions regarding the subject of miracles. Having written a number of focused works on the subject,¹ he has in this work, very successfully in my opinion, treated us to a most delightful fictional dialogue, following in a long line of philosophical works of this nature. It is amazing that so many influential philosophical ideas have been conveyed over the centuries via dialogue, and the format lends itself nicely to use with undergraduate students as the protagonists.

The Contemporary Scene

Are miracles even possible? How might they be defined? Is there any chance that they have actually occurred in the time-space world of past generations? Perhaps most interesting of all, might miracles be taking place in the present? Some may be surprised to learn that questions such as these are not solely the simple concerns of sectarian religious folks but are also of great interest to contemporary scholars. During the last few decades there have been literally thousands of sophisticated publications on these and other related issues, written by believers and unbelievers alike.

More specifically, a huge change has occurred in recent studies of the historical Jesus. Today, the majority critical position is that Jesus indeed did either perform many of the miraculous events recorded about him in the Gospels, or at least did things that were very much like those. Quite surprisingly, even well-known skeptical scholar Marcus Borg asserts that, despite the difficulty which miracles pose for the modern mind, on historical grounds it is virtually indisputable that Jesus was a healer and exorcist.²

What about present-day miracles—are there any such events? Several studies have been published, some with scientific accounts accompanied by strong pre- and post-data gathered from CT scans, MRIs, and X-rays, documenting the measurable changes in individuals in the immediate presence of prayer or other religious pointers, often in front of physicians. Craig Keener in his recent two-volume work, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, provides many of these evidenced cases.³ More than one physician has also provided other incredible accounts, including the evidence.⁴

Perhaps as a result, several recent opinion polls indicate another direction to this topic. Apparently, a major shift may be under way in many segments of the population, among a wide swath of our society, both professional and otherwise, regarding belief in the reality of miraculous events. For example, in the medical community, long thought by some to be among the more skeptical professions regarding the existence of supernatural realities, a 2004 survey reported that a majority of medical doctors both thought that miracles happened in the past (74%), and that they could also occur in the present (73%). Moreover, most of these physicians (59%) pray for their patients, and a majority (55%) even reported that they had witnessed personally what they considered to be miracles that had occurred among their own patients!⁵

However, in my PhD course entitled Miracles, we begin by considering some dozen-and-a-half skeptical a priori objections of various sorts to the belief in supernatural events, as represented in major academic journals. This much attention from critical scholars is compelling evidence that far more than believers alone are interested in the subject of miracle.

Even if a majority of people today, including physicians, believe in miracles, this is not to demonstrate that they are justified in such belief. What it does signal is that the appearance of new empirical evidence is potentially a major factor in making the possibility of justified belief in miracles more of an open question right now than it has been in a very long time. Bob, in this volume, takes on the task of making accessible to the non-specialist the central philosophical issues that arise in considering the rationality of belief in miracles. One of his major contributions to the debate has been to argue that many philosophers have been far too ready to dismiss on a priori grounds the occurrence of miracles, rather than to deal with empirical data.

The Setting of This Volume

This particular fictional discussion takes place in the setting of seven consecutive meetings of an undergraduate philosophy club, called the Socrates Society. It convenes on a university campus and the students have agreed for a term to carry on an open philosophical dialogue regarding the topic of whether belief in miracles could ever be rationally justified (chap 1, p. 1). Although most philosophy professors might wish their students more resembled Bob’s fictional characters, the discussions we find in the various dialogues are not stilted or otherwise difficult to grasp.

The student participants throughout the volume are Mary (a fourth-year philosophy honors student), John (another fourth-year philosophy honors student), Susan (the incoming Socrates Society president and a third-year philosophy honors student), Brendan (a third-year history honors student), and Holly (a second-year psychology major), who frequently requests that the philosophy students be more helpful in defining their in-house verbiage. The group is joined by Professor Roberts, their faculty advisor, who suggested the theme for the term and often supplies definitions and background information, especially for the non-philosophy majors.

Throughout, the student discussion is crisp, succinct, and generally stays on task. When it begins to wander slightly, just a few times, President Susan or Professor Roberts gently direct the others back to the chief topic for that particular meeting. A reading from a portion of David Hume’s famous essay Of Miracles quite often provides the backdrop and focal point of that week’s discussion. Objections to one another are posed, honed, argued, and not always solved to everyone’s satisfaction, just as in real-life philosophical dialogue! The discussion is fair and regularly provides both positive as well as negative critiques. In the end, students and readers alike are left to draw their final conclusions.

Time and again, it is easy for the reader to imagine being present at the discussion as a member of the group, like one might be drawn into a good philosophically-inclined novel. The more the reader is acquainted with the subject matter in current miracles discussions, the more often the opportunity will present itself to smile and think that the students are indeed following the appropriate topics through to their conclusions.

Key Ideas for Further Exploration

Throughout the dialogue, significant notions from current philosophical discussions on the topic of miracles emerge and are treated from more than one perspective. The overall effect is that, by enjoying the discussion, one becomes immersed in the relevant issues.

For example, it is quite frequently surmised by both believers and unbelievers alike that miracles, by definition, should be defined as events that violate the laws of nature in a strong sense, or at least temporarily supersede these laws in some weaker sense. Thus, the skeptical philosopher David Hume argued that such events should be defined as violations of nature’s laws.

But in chapters 1 and 2, Mary in particular argues that divine intervention could occur in such a way so as to produce an event that nature would not otherwise produce on its own, but which would not necessarily violate nature’s laws in the process. Common examples from everyday life are marshaled in making her case. Much rides on the conclusion here, for if Mary is correct in her contentions, then common Humean-type arguments based on the balance of probabilities which seek to juxtapose the evidence for the laws of nature over against the testimonial evidence in favor of miracles perhaps cannot even get started. This could be the case, she points out, since these skeptical arguments are built on the assumption that there is a conflict between nature’s laws and the human testimony, which need not necessarily be so at all.

Another important issue in this dialogue (in chaps. 5 and 6) is the question of whether an unusual event that has occurred must be distinguished from what is the best explanation of such an event. Given that there is good evidence for deciding that certain events that have traditionally been understood as miracles have actually occurred, the progress of science may actually strengthen the claim that these should be considered miraculous.

For example, there is no question that we know far more about human physiology and chemistry than we did two thousand years ago, but none of this increased knowledge has made it any easier to produce a natural explanation of an event such as Jesus turning water into wine simply by giving the command, or especially his rising from the dead.

Along the way, other vital topics are introduced and discussed by the students. Chapter 3 is devoted to the strength of Hume’s a priori argument against miracles as presented in section 1 of his essay on miracles, while chapter 4 is concerned with Hume’s a posteriori arguments as presented in section 2 of the same essay. Chapter 5 introduces the crucial topic of methodological naturalism and whether scientific study requires that natural causes be assumed for all events. John argues that, without that, science simply cannot operate properly. Holly quips that such a requirement sounds like methodological atheism to me.

Chapter 6 concerns another central topic: whether Hume was correct in postulating that a miracle can never serve as an argument for the existence of God or for the truth of a particular theological system. As is often the case, John is the chief defender of Hume, while Mary presents several contrary arguments. Some crucial distinctions are made in this discussion, such as a miracle being a type of teleological argument. Lastly, chapter 7 poses the thorny issue of what bearing the possibility of miracles might have on subjects often associated with the problem of evil and whether God may have created an imperfect world that necessitates his tampering.

Conclusion

Several times while reading this volume, it occurred to me that a book of this nature was an excellent means of getting across key ideas in this philosophical discussion and doing so in a lively way that moves quickly, apart from the normally extended and detailed theoretical diatribes that often lose students in the process. The final result, in my opinion, is elegant, delightful, and, in the end, very instructional. Suggestions are made, answered, and repackaged, just as these sorts of dialogues happen in everyday life.

Any final judgments are left open-ended, and no force-feeding occurs. The reader can creatively take the side of any of the students, or take a different approach altogether, pose their own responses, and then shift sides to argue the opposite view. Is it true that David Hume seems to get the short end of the stick in this discussion, just as he does in so many other philosophical discussions of late? Is that justified? Why or why not does this seem to be the case? Each reader may interact with the discussion, evaluate the arguments, and then decide who makes the better case. All that is asked of the reader is that he or she be open to rational discussion of an important and interesting topic.

1. One of his most recent publications on the topic is The Legitimacy of Miracle.

2. Borg, Jesus, a New Vision,

61

.

3. For just a few of the details, see Keener, Miracles,

1

:

428

–

35

,

440

,

463

,

491

,

503

;

2

:

206

,

680

.

4. Casdorph, Real Miracles: Indisputable Medical Evidence That God Heals. Also Gardner, Healing Miracles: A Doctor Investigates.

5. These data are reported by Keener, Miracles,

2

:

721

–

22

. Several other surveys with both positive and very intriguing results are reported by Keener in

1

:

204

–

5

.

Preface

The literary device of dialogue is a time-honored means of exploring philosophical questions. We find it employed by philosophers of the stature of Plato, Berkeley, and Hume, to name only a few of those who have used it to great effect. I propose to use it in this book as a way of exploring, in a manner that will be readily accessible to those with little or no formal training in philosophy, important questions concerning the rationality of belief in miracles.

A criticism that can be fairly raised is that, in many instances, philosophical dialogues are scarcely deserving of the term dialogue. One hears in the central character the voice and views of the author, but the other characters in the dialogue often seem at best compliant or at worst inept. Done poorly, the philosophical dialogue highlights the very human tendency to overestimate