Chapter Five - Science and Miracles
¡@
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 History of Science
This rise of modern science began with Copernicus (1475-1543), a Polish astronomer, and Vesalius (1514-1564), a Belgian anatomist. The Chinese, Greeks, and Arabs had a lot of knowledge about the universe in their use of science, but it was Roger Bacon (1214-1294) and others of Oxford University who developed the precise use of empirical observation, which is so characteristic of modern science.
Astronomers Copernicus and Galileo (1564-1642), an Italian, observed the universe, and denied the State Church's teaching that the universe revolved around the earth. They had observed, through their simple telescopes, that the earth revolved around the sun. While Galileo was forced by the church to recant his beliefs, his observations were already in writing all over Europe for everyone to test for themselves the truth of his new declarations.
In spite of the stress scientists experienced because of the State Church, modern science from 1200 to 1600 held to a biblical world view. Galileo, Copernicus, Francis Bacon (the English writer who summarized the experimental method (1561-1626), Tycho Brahe (the Danish astronomer [1546-1601]), and others recognized order in the universe, because an intelligent God planned its precise interlocking elements.
Why, after the 1600s, did much of science gave up on the concept of an intelligent God? It could possibly have been due to the intransigence of the State Church, which drove out a number of good scientists. It was a time when the State Church insisted on declaring what was or was not correct scientifically. Even the Reformation was too late to reverse the tragic drain of scientists.
Increasingly during the 1700s and 1800s, God was pushed to the fringe of human thought by later modern science. Though a freer approach was adopted by Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903), who declared in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus that one must not look for exactitude in scientific language in Scripture, was not enough to stem the development of a new kind of modern science.
1.2 Definition of Science
It proclaimed a completely closed universe where God has no existence. Science became mechanistic, where everything could be explained on the basis of matter and motion, or, "materialistic-energy, chance concept of final reality" (Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto, Westchester, III: Crossway Books, 1981, p.44).
Mechanism is further defined by Frank H.T. Rhodes, Christianity in a Mechanistic Universe, D.M. MacKay, ed., Chicageo: InterVarsity Press, 1965, p.11: "The view of nature which maintains that natural phenomena can and should be studied, described and explained by reference to matter in motion and their physical laws." This philosophy of science is in complete disagreement with a biblical position.
¡@
2. PRESUPPOSITIONS OF MODERN SCIENCE
2.1 God Does Not Exist
The basic presuppositions of a mechanistic scientist are:
God does not exist; and
this universe is all that there is.
2.2 There is a Pattern to the Universe
Although many scientists describe the universe as impersonal matter and energy, and believe that its current form is due to impersonal chance, yet, most modern scientists do not accept the precise operation of the universe as based on chance. Instead, their belief is in an orderly plan of the universe. This is a concept which arises out of a biblical world view! But the scientist still presumes this plan on his own, and he is more than 90% sure, based on probability, that such a plan exists.
2.3 The Pattern and its Parts
The second basic presupposition, as the scientist examines the universe, is his complete confidence that he can discover how its parts inter-relate. With all of the ever-increasing high technological possibilities at the scientist's fingertips, he feels confident in his attempt to observe, discover, and understand the operation of this universe.
2.4 The Necessity of Integrity
Still another curious presupposition is the necessity of integrity. The scientist must be completely open to the data he observes, and not fit it into some preconceived notion of what he would like.
One example is the so-called Piltdown Man, whose skull was discovered in 1911 in England. Since the jaw was thought to be ape-like, this find was heralded as the key to demonstrate the evolutionary hypothesis. In 1953, the British government admitted that the so-called Piltdown Man was a hoax. With just a few bones, a scientist had reconstructed a human link between man and some higher form of primate, in an attempt to "prove" evolution. The result of this lack of integrity reminds scientists to be careful of the data with which they work.
¡@
3. THE METHODOLOGY OF MODERN SCIENCE
3.1 The Scientific Method
3.1.1 Necessity of empirical investigation
Many people worship at the shrine of the scientific method, confident that its endeavor is the source of all knowledge. Roger Bacon felt that empirical science must be the central place in learning, and stated that there is no certainty without experience. Therefore, in the scientific method, we obtain scientific laws through the process of :
observation;
experiment;
hypothesis;
testing the hypothesis; and
refining this hypothesis enough so that a uniform pattern emerges.
3.1.2 Balance of reason and experience
However, the scientist is not completely tied to empiricism. There are two ways of acquiring knowledge:
reason; and
experience.
In reasoning, conclusions are drawn from basic presuppositions, but the contribution of the scientific method is that the conclusions of reason need to be tested by experience.
One may reason that fire burns, but he will not have a full knowledge of how and why it burns until he sets some combustible material on the fire. This live experience is the final convincing step that fire burns.
3.1.3 Tensions for the scientific method
Two problems, or tensions, for scientists are:
establishing a purpose or reason why this universe is here; and
the final cause, or end result, of this universe's destination.
Many scientists do not deny these two areas for consideration, but the problem is that there is no way to scientifically test purpose and final cause. What cannot be empirically verified, scientists are very reluctant to even consider. We shall further discuss the aspect of purpose at the middle of this lesson.
3.2 A Detached Way of Viewing the Universe
The scientific method can be accused of being completely detached from anything human or emotional. Scientists tend to become abstract in studying the bits and pieces which make up this universe.
One example is how the scientist studies a diamond (Frank Rhodes, Christianity in a Mechanistic Universe, op. cit., p.27). He will observe the diamond's color, how many facets are on its face, and its weight in carats. The scientific methodology has a procedure by which to observe, test and come to conclusions about the bits and pieces of information that precisely describe the diamond.
3.3 A Broader Science
A 19th century science built models by which it confidently sought to explain the universe. Chemistry saw the universe made up of many elements which interacted "with a few laws" so that it was easily explained. The study of physics was also locked into an examination of "ultimate entities," which were the building blocks of the universe (see again, Frank Rhodes, op. cit., pp. 29-30). All one had to do was examine the laws governing the blocks. But this approach of science was too compartmentalized, and many scientists of the 20th century would reject such a view. Today there is a realization that there must be a synthesis of everything which is discoverable, and those who use the disciplines of science have learned how to draw heavily upon each other to gain knowledge in a total experience.
¡@
4. PROBLEMS WITH A MECHANISTIC SCIENCE
4.1 The Value of Science
Science has contributed greatly to the progress of man. By the use of the empirical method, and by being inquisitive about every area of knowledge, scientists have made great discoveries which have been put to use.
We have a better stnadard of living in our homes, in our offices and factories, our transportation systems, and so on. The scientific method has also swept away a number of superstitutions and false information about our earth and universe, prevalent in the State Church for hundreds of years until the modern period.
Yet, we must also recognize its limitations. A better standard of living does not necessarily mean a better morality. Unless man is regenerated, he is still the same man he has been for centuries. The contributions of science do not necessarily make for safer communities in which to live.
4.2 Can Science Explain Everything?
4.2.1 After-the-event explanation
How much can science explain? Pseudo-scientists particularly, writing for popular science magazines, have a knack for saying that science can explain everything. Consider, for example, one of the miracles of the Bible, such as the incarnation or resurrection. There are scientists and pseudo-scientists who would say that these claims never did happen, and that the disciples were deluded, saw a vision, had hallucinations, etc. This is what Clark calls an after-the-event explanation (Robert Clark, The Christian Stake in Science, Exeter, Devon, England: The Paternoster Press, 1967, p.19ff.). An eclipse can be predicted by plotting mathematically the course of the sun and the moon, and scientists can pinpoint the time of an eclipse. But suppose some other event took place unexpectedly. Some scientists will either insist confidently that they can provide the exact answer for what had already happened, or, they might even explain it away.
4.2.2 A reasonable procedure
When we consider the miracles of the Bible, which have been designated once-and-for-all events, an honest scientist should, first of all, examine the record of reliable witnesses, what they saw, heard, felt, etc. What did these witnesses have to declare of the resurrection, or any other of the miracles? Such events are not repeatable, a factor necessary for scientists to use the scientific method. The best that an honest scientist can do to explain a once-for-all event after it has happened is to say, "I don't have enough information to either affirm or deny the miracle." He should not try to dismiss the phenomenon out of hand, but should recognize that something unexplainable did occur in the miracle.
4.2.3 The disvalue of mechanistic science
The atheistic scientist's methodology is that everthing has to be tested by the scientific method. What cannot be tested must be thrown out. But we must remember the basic presuppositions of a mechanistic scientist:
God does not exist; and
this universe is all that there is.
The modern scientist wants to examine this world as a coherent whole, and not miss one piece of information which makes up this whole. But can we as believers be satisified that the universe consists only of the natural world? A two-dimensional mechanistic way of looking at the universe is not enough to adequately explain everything in human experience, much less explain the origin and final destiny of man and this universe.
4.3 The Double Revelation Theory
4.3.1 Two revelations
In understanding double revelation, we note that God has given to man two revelations of truth:
Scripture (i.e. the Holy Bible); and
Nature.
These two differ in their character. In one, God reveals Himself in special revelation - the Word of God (i.e. the Holy Bible). In the other, God reveals Himself in general revelation - the universe. Ramm, who suggested this theory, asserts that there is no contradiction between the two revelations, because they are given by the same self-consistent God of truth (Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956, Chapters 1 & 2). The rest of the book substantiates the basic thesis.
4.3.2 Two experts
Each sphere of revelation has its own experts:
the theologian, who interprets Scriptures; and
the scientist, who is the God-appointed interpreter of this universe.
What happens what there are apparent conflicts between these experts? For example, what about the concerns of the origin of the universe, the explanation of life, and in particular, who is man? One theory suggests that when the theologian finds himself in apparent conflict with the concerns of science, he must give away, re-interpreting Scripture to bring it into harmony with the consensus of scientists!
4.3.3 Recognition of a chastened attitude
Believers, however, need to examine carefully what are legitimate claims by scientists. There are examples, from the past, of believers who were very reluctant to use scientific research, and who castigated scientists for even putting the fruits of their research into the hands of men.
In one instance, when the possibilities of radio first became apparent, there were believers who were confident that radio must not be used. Since Satan is the prince of the power of the air (Ephesians 2:2), and therefore controls the air waves, well-meaning believers felt that radio is a tool of Satan! Today we smile with contempt at such conclusions.
The sad fact is, however, that evangelicals still need to change their attitudes with regard to the many disciplines of science. In every generation, when science has opened up new areas of research, believers have been very slow to realize the value of these contributions, and how to make the best possible use of them. Christians need to be open to the new discoveries of science because it depends on what people do with these new possibilities that make them acceptable or not.
4.4 The Fallacies of This Theory
Ramm goes a step further than merely chastening Christian prejudice. He suggests that believers could hold to evolution, recognizing it as a development which God superintended. The book of Genesis can then be viewed as agreeing with many of the views of modern science. Obviously, when the day of glory arrives (i.e. the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ), we will have the best possible knowledge available in science and Bible interpretation.
The theory of "when the theologian finds himself in apparent conflict with the concerns of science, he must give away, re-interpreting Scripture to bring it into harmony with the consensus of scientists" might be acceptable, but there are valid reasons now which militate against the theory, they are:
scientists can have an anti-theistic bias;
scientists could not handle the once-and-for-all event properly, e.g. the miracle; and
in some cases, it is impossible to have harmonization between the believer and the scientist.
4.4.1 Scientists can have an anti-theistic bias
If the scientist is a mechanic, then how would he handle the facts of nature? Facts must fit into an overall system of belief. If the scientist does not believe in God or the miraculous, then how will he explain the basic structure and character of the universe (cosmology)? And how will he regard the origin of the universe and its parts (cosmology)? Certainly not within the biblical sense!
4.4.2 Scientists could not handle the once-and-for-all event properly, e.g. the miracle
If he is not disposed to deal with or accept these events, then we see a point of tension between the theologian and the scientist.
4.4.3 In some cases, it is impossible to have harmonization between the believer and the scientist
What happens, for example, when scientists make pronouncements contrary to what the Bible says concerning scientific matters? We recognize that the Bible is not a textbook on science, yet when the Bible speaks in areas of science, then the theologian cannot give up on these statements and surrender his interpretation to that of a scientist, who will be suspicious of the presuppositions of the biblical position.
For example, what about evolution?
Even where God guided its development, as Ramm suggests, the Scriptures state that each life form was created after its kind, as we shall see in chapter 6. This means that each form was immediately created by God. The Bible does not declare that there was an original life form which God directed through its many stages. Obviously, we have a point of tension, and the theologian must cling to what the Scripture declares in this and other areas which touch on scientific details.
¡@
5. PURPOSE AND PLAN
5.1 The Presupposition of a Plan
We have already pointed out that one of the basic presuppositions of a scientist, even a mechanistic one, is that there is a precise plan behind the bits and pieces which he observes.
5.2 Purpose
However, the next question follows: if there is a plan, is there anything, or "anyone" behind it? For many mechanistic scientists, any purpose involved in the plan of the universe is denied simply because there is no way to test it. But we reply, "How does he test his presupposition of a plan?" He merely accepts it.
The scientist, if he is honest, might say that there is purpose, but there is no way to test it. And yet, there are scientists today who are ready to admit that logically, given a plan, there must be a purpose, perhaps the work of a master mind who brought the universe into existence (David Ingram, "Plan and Purpose in the Universe," Christianity in the Mechanistic Universe, D.M. MacKay, op. cit., p.83). At least, purpose can be a presupposition about how the universe came into being. However, many scientists now who are believers, and go a step further to declare that a personal being, God, structured purpose and plan into the universe.
¡@
6. ARE MIRACLES POSSIBLE?
Do you think that Christ actually fed 5,000 persons from five loaves of bread and two fish (Matthew 14:13-21)? Many modern questioners say these miracle stories in the Bible must be quaint ways of conveying spiritual truth, and they are not meant to be taken literally. The questioner's problem is generally not with a particular miracle, but with a whole principle. His controversy is with the whole principle of the possibility of miracles.
6.1 The Whole Concept of God
One who has problems with miracles often has difficulty with the validity of predictive prophecy. The real problem is not with miracles or prophecy, but with the whole concept of God. Once we accept the existence of God, there is no problem with miracles, because God is by definition all-powerful. In the absence of such a God, the concept of miracles becomes difficult to entertain.
6.2 God is Not Bound by Natural Law
The question really is, "Does an all-powerful God, who created the universe, exist?" If so, we shall have little difficulty with miracles in which He transcends the natural law of which He is the author. It is important to keep this fundamental question in mind in discussing miracles. How we know God exists has already been discussed.
Some people have defined a miracle as a violation of natural law. To take such a position is to deify natural law, to capitalize it in such a way that whatever God there may be becomes the prisoner of natural law and, in effect, ceases to be God.
In this modern scientific age, people tend to personify science and natural law. They fail to realize that these are merely the impersonal results of observation. A Christian believes in natural law, which is to say that things behave in a certain cause-and-effect way almost all the time - year after year, century after century. But in maintaining this he does not restrict God's right and power to intervene when and how he chooses. God is over, above and outside natural law, and is not bound by it.
Law do not cause anything in the sense that God causes things. They are merely descriptions of what happens.
6.3 What, in Fact, is a Miracle?
In a consideration of miracles as they are thought of in the Bible, we mean an act of God breaking into, changing or interrupting the ordinary course of things.
To be sure, the Bible records various kinds of miracles, and some of them could have a natural explanation. For instance, the parting of the Red Sea was accomplished by the natural cause of the high winds which drove the waters back. Perhaps this could have happened apart from God's intervention. The miraculous part was the timing. That the waters should part just as the Israelites reached the shore, and should close on the Egyptians as they were in hot pursuit, and after every Israelites was safely on dry land, clearly proves the miraculous intervention of God (Exodus 14:15-31).
On the other hand, there are many miracles for which there are no natural explanations. The resurrection of Lazarus from the dead (John 11:17-45) and the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:1-17; Mark 16:1-14; Luke 24:1-53; John 20:11-21:14; Acts 1:1-11) involved forces unknown to us and outside the realm of so-called natural law. The same is true with many of the miraculous healings. It has been fashionable to explain these in terms of psychosomatic response. We know today that many illnesses, rather than having an organic origin, originate in the mind. If the mental condition is corrected, the physical condition rights itself. Some medical authorities estimate that 85% of the illnesses in our pressurized society are psychosomatic.
Undoubtedly there was an element of this dimension in our Lord's healings, but some were clearly outside this category. Take, for instance, the healings of leprosy (Matthew 8:1-4; Luke 17:11-14). Obviously these did not have a psychosomatic base. Lepers who were made well experienced the direct power of God. Then there are the clear cases of healing of congenital disease, such as the man born blind (John 9:1-38). Since this man was born with his blindness, it could obviously not be accounted for on a psychosomatic basis, and for the same reasons neither could his receiving his sight.
This case illustrates the fallacy of another notion common among modern thinkers. We must remember that people in ancient times were exceedingly ignorant, gullible and superstitious. For instance, if we were to fly a modern jet over a primitive tribe today, they would probably fall to the ground in worship of this "silver bird god" of the sky. They would think that the sight they observed was a miraculous phenomenon. We know that the plane is nothing miraculous at all.
The problem with this thesis, which sounds so plausible at first, is that many of the miracles are not of this order. In the case of the blind man, the people observed that since the beginning of time it had not been known for a man born blind to receive his sight. And we have no more natural explanation of this miracle now than was available then. And who, today, has any more explanation, in a natural sense, of our Lord's resurrection from the dead than was available when it happened? No one! We simply cannot get away from the supernatural aspects of the biblical record.
6.4 Not in Conflict with Natural Law
It is important to note that miracles are not in conflict with any natural law. Rather as J.N. Hawthorne puts it, "Miracles are unusual events caused by God. The laws of nature are generalizations about ordinary events caused by Him."
Some people suggest that miracles employ a "higher" natural law, which at present is unknown to us. Despite all of the impressive discoveries of modern science, we are still standing on the seashore of an ocean of ignorance. When we have increased our knowledge sufficiently, we will realize that the things we today thought were miracles were merely the working out of the higher laws of the universe, of which we were not aware at the time.
But a law, in the modern scientific sense, is that which is regular and acts uniformly. To say that a miracle is the result of a higher law, then, is to use the term in a way that is different from its customary usage and meaning.
6.5 An Act of Creation
On the other hand, Christian thinkers view miracles as an act of creation - a sovereign, transcendent act of God's supernatural power. This is the more appropriate view.
Biblical miracles, in contrast to miracle stories in pagan literature and those of other religions, were never capricious or fantastic. They were not scattered helter-skelter through the record without reason. There was always clear order and purpose to them. They cluster around three periods of biblical history:
the Exodus, the prophets who led Israel;
the time of Christ and;
the early church.
They always had as their purpose to confirm faith by authenticating the message and the messenger, or to demonstrate God's love by relieving suffering. They were never performed as entertainment, as a magician puts on a show for his patrons.
Miracles were never performed for personal prestige or to to gain money or power. Our Lord Jesus was tempted by the Devil in the wilderness to use His miracle power in just this way, but He steadfastly refused (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13).
In answer to the direct request of the Jews to tell them plainly if he was the Messiah, He said, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me" (John 10:25). Again He says that if they had any hesitation in believing His claims they should believe Him "on the evidence of the miracles themselves" (John 14:11).
God confirmed the message of the apostles in the fledgling church with signs and wonders (Acts 3:1-26; 5:1-16; 6:8; 9:15-18, 32-42; 13:8-12; 14:8-10; 16:16-34; 19:13-20; 20:7-12; 27:14-28:9).
6.6 Why Not Now?
People often say, "If God performed miracles then, why does He not do them now?" If I saw a miracle I could believe!" This question was answered in our Lord's time. A rich man who was in the torment of Hell lifted up his eyes and pleaded with Abraham that someone should warn his five brothers lest they too should come into the awful place. He was told that his brothers had the Scriptures (i.e. Holy Bible). But the rich man protested that if one should rise from the dead, they would be shaken by the miracle and would take heed. The reply given applies as much today as then: "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets," Abraham said, "they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead" (Luke 16:19-31; John 5:39). And so it is today. Many have made a rationalistic presupposition which rules out the very possibility of miracles. Since they know miracles are impossible, no amount of evidence would ever persuade them one had taken place. There would always be an alternate naturalistic explanation for them to advance.
6.7 We Have Reliable Records
Miracles are not necessary for us today because we already have reliable records of those miracles which have occurred. Every court in the world operates on the basis of reliable testimony by word of mouth or in writing. If the raising of Lazarus (John 11:17-45) was actually witnessed by John and recorded faithfully by him when still in soundness of faculties and memory, for purposes of evidence it is the same as if we were there and saw it. Bernard Ramm then lists reasons we may know that the miracles have adequate and reliable testimony. The reaons are summarized as follows:
many miracles were done in public;
some miracles were performed before unbelievers;
the miracles of the Lord Jesus Christ were performed over a period of time and involved a great variety of powers;
we have the testimony of the cured; and
we cannot discount the gospel miracles because of the extravagant claim of pagan miracles.
6.7.1 Many miracles were done in public
They were not performed in secret before only one or two people, who announced them to the world. There was every opportunity to investigate the miracles on the spot. It is very impressive that the opponents of Jesus never denied the fact of the miracles He performed (John 5:1-18). They either attributed them to the power of Satan (Matthew 12:22-29; Mark 3:22-30; Luke 11:14-26) or else tried to suppress the evidence (Matthew 28:11-15; John 9:1-41), as with the raising of Lazarus from the dead (John 11:17-46). They said, in effect, "Let's kill Him before the people realize what is happening and the whole world goes after Him!" (John 11:47-53).
6.7.2 Some miracles were performed before unbelievers
It is significant that the miracles claimed by false cults and unconventional religious groups never seem to happen when the skeptic is present to observe. It was not so with the Lord Jesus Christ.
6.7.3 The miracles of Jesus were performed over a period of time and involved a great variety of powers
The miracles of the Lord Jesus Christ involved a great variety of powers as follows:
He had power over nature, as when He turned the water to wine (John 2:1-11) and calmed storm in the sea (Matthew 8:23-27);
He had power over disease, as when He healed the lepers (Matthew 8:1-4; Luke 17:11-14) and the blind (John 9:1-38);
He had power over demons, as was shown by His casting them out (Matthew 8:28-34; 9:32-33);
He had supernatural powers of knowledge, as in His knowing that Nathanael was under a fig tree (John 1:43-50);
He demonstrated His power of creation when He fed 5,000 people from a few loaves and fish (Matthew 14:16-21; Luke 9:13-17); and
He exhibited power over death itself in the raising of Lazarus (John 11:17-45) and others (Luke 8:49-56).
6.7.4 We have the testimony of the cured
As noted earlier, we have it from those, like Lazarus, whose healings could not have been psychosomatic or a result of inaccurate diagnosis.
6.7.5 We cannot discount the gospel miracles because of the extravagant claim of pagan miracles
Miracles are believed in non-Christian religions because the religion is already believed, but in the biblical religion, miracles are part of the means of establishing the true religion. This distinction is of immense importance. Israel was brought into existence by a series of miracles, the Law was given surrounded by supernatural wonders, and many of the prophets were identified as God's spokesmen by their power to perform miracles. Jesus came not only preaching but performing miracles, and the apostles from time to time worked wonders. It was the miracle authenticating the religion at every point.
6.8 Pagan Miracles
Miracles recorded outside the Bible do not display the same order, dignity and motive as those in Scripture. But what is more important, they do not have the same solid authentication as the biblical miracles. We have discussed at some length the historical reliability of Bible records (as shown in previous chapters 2 & 4). Similar investigations into pagan records of miracles would soon show there is no basis for comparison.
The same could be said of many so-called miracles and alleged healings of our own time. They do not stand the full weight of investigation. But to take some ancient pagan miracle, or a contemporary claim, and to show their great improbability is not fair to biblical miracles. The fact that some miracles are counterfeits is no proof that all are spurious, the discovery of some counterfeit currency would not prove all currency are spurious.
6.9 Exaggerated Reporting
Some attempts have been made to explain miracles on the basis of exaggerated reporting. It has been demonstrated that people are notoriously inaccurate in reporting events and impressions. Playing the simple parlor game of Rumor is enough to confirm this fact. In the light of this tendency, we are told, it is obvious that the reliability of a human being as an observer may be severely questioned. Consequently, we can discount the gospel accounts of miracles as the mistaken observations of inaccurate and imaginative observers.
It may be answered that despite this tendency, law courts have not ceased functioning, and eyewitnesses are still considered able to provide highly useful information. And though there may be some question about such details of an accident as the time, speed of the cars, etc., the accident cannot be said not to have happened because of discrepancies in witnesses' stories. The smashed cars and the injured people are irrefutable evidence on which all agreed.
We must be careful to see the limitations of arguments such as the unreliability of witnesses. It will help us greatly to see that some of these arguments, pressed to their outer limits, refute the very assertions they set out to make. For instance, those conducting the experiments to establish the unreliability of human witnesses must assume their own reliability or they will have to throw out their own conclusions as being the result of human observation, which is unreliable!
6.10 Believers Can't Be Objective
Another erroneous idea, sometimes advanced, is that the miracle stories must be discarded because they are told by believing disciples and are therefore not objective. But the disciples were the ones on the scene who saw the miracles. The question is, "Did they tell the truth?" As we have seen, eyewitness testimony is the best we can get, and most of the disciples faced the test of death as the test of their veracity.
We would not today, in a court of law, say that in order to guarantee objectivity on the part of witnesses, we will listen only to those who were not at the scene of an accident and had nothing to do with it. Nor would we say we would not take testimony from eyewitnesses, including the victims, because they would be prejudiced. The crucial question in each case is truthfulness, not proximity or relationship to the events.
6.11 The Question is Philosophical
We have seen that the question of whether miracles are possible is not scientific, but philosophical. Science can only say miracles do not occur in the ordinary course of nature. Science cannot forbid miracles because natural laws do not cause, and therefore cannot forbid, anything. They are merely descriptions of what happens. It is "scientism," rather than science, which says miracles cannot happen. The scientist, like anyone else, can only ask, "Are the records of miracles historically reliable?"
Further, we have seen the miracles in the Bible are an inherent part of God's communication to us (i.e. not a mere appendage of little significance). We have seen that the whole question ultimately depends on the existence of God. Settle that question and miracles cease to be a problem. The very uniformity against which a miracle stands in stark contrast depends on an omnipotent author of natural law, who is also capable of transcending it to accomplish His sovereign ends.
¡@
7. REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER STUDY
¡@
¡@
¡@