RSS
Possibility of Miracles
CS Lewis (Harper SanFrancisco: Feb 2001)
"The central miracle asserted by Christians is the Incarnation. They say that God became Man. Every other miracle prepares the way for this, or results from this." This is the key statement of Miracles, in which C. S. Lewis shows that a Christian must not only accept but rejoice in miracles as a testimony of the unique personal involvement of God in his creation. Using his characteristic lucidity and wit to develop his argument, Lewis challenges the rationalists, agnostics, and deists on their own grounds and makes out an impressive case for the irrationality of their assumptions.
R. Douglas Geivet, ed. and Gary R. Habermas, ed. (InterVarsity Press, February 1997), 330p.
Geivett and Habermas have collected some of the best available scholars around today to present a case for the actions of God in human history. The book begins with David Hume's work on miracles along with a response from Antony Flew (the eminent Humean scholar). Then, a barrage of Christian philosophers and theologians tackle the issue of miracles in each chapter. Some of the chapter titles include - Defining Miracles (Richard Purtill), Miracles and the Modern Mind (Norman L. Geisler), History and Miracles (Francis J. Beckwith, Recognizing a Miracle (Winfried Corduan), Science, Miracles, Agency, Theory & the God-of-the-Gaps (J.P. Moreland), The Evidential Value of Miracles (Douglas Geivett), Miracles in the World Religions (David K. Clark), The Incarnation of Jesus Christ (John S. Feinberg), The Empty Tomb of Jesus (William Lane Craig), The Resurrection Appearances of Jesus (Gary R. Habermas), and more.
~ by David Basinger in Sophia: A Journal for Discussion in Philosophical Theology (Volume 26, Number 3 / October, 1987)
In response to Robert A. Larmer, Basinger argues: "There is little basis upon which to claim that all proponents of solely
natural causation are guilty of dogmatic, uncritical, question-begging
reasoning. To claim emphatically that there is in fact no God (and thus
no divine causal intervention) may be an unwarranted metaphysical
contention. But the nontheist need not be making any such ontological
claim. She can simply be saying that, while this epistemological
contention is debatable, its affirmation is not necessarily any more
dogmatic or question begging than the belief that the 'total' evidence
makes theistic belief (and thus the possibility of divine intervention)
most reasonable."
~ by David Basinger, in Sophia: A Journal for Discussion in Philosophical Theology. (1983, vol. 22, no2, pp. 15-22)
Basinger responds to Anthony Flew's contention that: "the historian must maintain with respect to any alleged miracle that the event did not in fact occur as reported". Basinger concedes that Flew's argument has merit, but argues that it ultimately fails. And by the way, to save a trip to dictionary.com, "nomology" is the science of laws. Basinger concludes: "The fact that
an alleged occurrence is incompatible with current nomologicals must
indeed be seriously considered when the historian rules on its
historicity. However, Flew has failed to demonstrate that a seeming
counterinstance must be shown to be consistent with current
nomologicals before the historian can justifiably rule that it can be
known to have occurred. Alleged 'miracles' cannot be dismissed this
easily."

