In defence of miracles

IN DEFENCE OF MIRACLES
By R.D. Geivett & G.R. Habermas
Apollos. 330 pages. £11.99

Evangelicals believe in miracles. This is because we believe in a God who created everything that exists. We find it a lot easier to believe that everything that exists was created by God than that it just came into being out of nothing.

If God created the universe in the first place, there seems no reason to think that he is unable to continue to do things in the universe he has made, causing things to happen that would not otherwise happen. When he does such a thing, we call it a miracle.

Our 'scientific' culture does not believe in miracles. This is because it believes everything that happens in the universe happens according to the laws of science; everything has a 'natural' explanation. There is nothing beyond the 'scientific' natural world. There is no place for the 'supernatural'.

No one approaches the issue of miracles with a completely open mind. The evangelicals' approach is shaped by our basic belief in God. The scientific naturalists' approach is shaped by their assumption that the natural order is all there is.

So, at heart, the debate over miracles is not so much a discussion of whether the evidence for any given miracle is strong or weak, but a matter of our foundational beliefs, our basic worldview; both sides interpret the evidence according to their foundational beliefs, and so come to opposite conclusions.

Foundational beliefs are often adopted unconsciously; it would be fair to say that the large majority of people in Britain whose worldview causes them to write off the possibility of miracles have never really thought through their foundational beliefs; they have been indoctrinated through our education system with the prevailing naturalism, and have accepted it largely without question.

But naturalism as a foundational worldview is drastically flawed. Indeed, it is unliveable.

The case against it operates on two levels. The first is more philosophical, showing by a number of arguments that naturalism's foundational beliefs are untenable. The second is more practical, showing that the evidence we have that God has in fact intervened in the world is sufficient to challenge the assumption that only the natural world exists.

Defence of Miracles presents the case on both levels. It sets careful philosophical argument alongside, say, the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. It challenges the naturalist's arguments, and it demonstrates that their foundational beliefs are untenable. It also examines the evidence for the existence of God, fulfilled prophecy, and in particular the issue of God's intervention in the world in Jesus. Chapter titles include 'Defining Miracles', 'Miracles and the Modern Mind', 'History and Miracles', 'Recognising a Miracle', 'Miracles and Conceptual Systems', 'God's Actions' and 'Miracles in the World Religions'. There is one chapter on science and miracles, and one on their evidential value.

The book is a collection of essays by 16 authors. It starts with contributions by David Hume and Antony Flew stating the case against miracles. (Quite something for IVP to be publishing the work of one of Britain's best known atheists!) Then there are 14 chapters by professional philosophers (and one astrophysicist) arguing for them. The book was originally published by American IVP and I personally feel somewhat chagrined that the two 'baddies' among the contributors are British, while all the 'goodies' are American.

Though generally well written, some contributors are better than others at saying profound things simply. There is an overall developing theme, but each chapter stands as an independent unit so it is not necessary, for those readers who don't find following a careful philosophical argument particularly easy, to plough through every chapter. Indeed, quite apart from its specific purpose to defend miracles, the book can be used as a source for contemporary evangelical thinking on the wide range of issues covered.

A good book, with arguments that can stand in the forefront of contemporary philosophical discussion. We have a strong case.

Peter Hicks,
Lecturer in Philosophy, London Bible College

Main Articles

Other articles