Faith arguments Part 15

47:02 - 50:30 Lennox: Nobody is claiming that these things occurred by natural processes. They occurred, because God fed His power in. Nor did the whole universe occur by natural processes: God created it and we study the natural processes within it. So, when D says it's anti-scientific. L thinks it's not anti-scientific. (D disagrees - If and when we had to do science bearing in mind that every now and then, there might be a little magic trick slipped in, that would completely nullify the whole enterprise of science.) L agrees. (D disagrees - But that's what L is allowing.) L disagrees again - No. In order to recognise special acts of God, you must be living in a universe that has regularity. (D agrees - Otherwise you wouldn't notice the miracles.) If dead people were popping up all over the place, you wouldn't think it's very special. You need two things: regularity, i.e. the laws of nature; and to recognise those. For example, when Joseph discovered that his wife-to-be, Mary, was pregnant, he didn't believe her story. He wanted to divorce her. He knew exactly where babies came from. It took very special convincing for him to realise that something extremely special had happened. Science cannot stop that. The question is, of course, did such a thing ever happen? And the central focus of the New Testament is not that, but the resurrection of Christ. Many ancient historians say that the evidence for the resurrection is very powerful: the explosion of the Christian faith from the non-prosalitising Jews of the first century, the empty tomb and the rest. Are we prepared to believe in historical testimony or not? (D: L must be talking to different historians than D. You cannot do science if at any time, a miracle can slip in. That is deeply against the spirit of science. D couldn't do science if he thought that at any time, the resurrection or virgin birth could be smuggled in by a godly caprice.) The moderator calls time.

L insists that miracles can't be stopped by science, and D insists that miracles would nullify science. Actually, natural science should focus on the best available knowledge, rather than endulge in reassuringly circular definitions. Miracles might disturb natural scientists - so what? On the other hand, allowing for miracles doesn't mean miracles will occur left and right. They might happen once in a blue moon, and even then, they'll involve a tiny fraction of reality, so miracles don't actually disturb natural science in the least. Note that if you say miracles can't happen by definition, you abandon the quest for the best available knowledge, and pretend to have answered the unanswered structural question - that is hubris. In addition to His societal function (which you encounter on a daily basis), the Christian God is the God of the gaps... in your hubris, i.e. an encounter with God (if any) is possible only when a gap opens up in your hubris. It's a pity that D and L don't discuss morality in earnest. Next time, perhaps, folks. end