Clarification on "I Believe in Miracles."

Recently, I wrote a post in which I sought out to address a common objection to miracles.

Tildeb, the commenter to whom the post was originally directed, was good enough to respond in the comments section here:

http://questionablemotives.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/what-does-honesty-from-coal-producers-sound-like

However, given the misunderstandings which have cropped up in that thread, I feel it necessary to make some clarifications.

My argument isn't meant to show:
a. That the Resurrection occured.
b. That any other miracles have occured.

It is meant to show that:

A common objection, “If we consider miracles as a possible explanation, then doing science will become impossible, because it’s always possible that God might be miraculously interfering with the results of the experiments.” is false.

In my first reply to tildeb, I noted "The rest of your reply states various reasons why a particular miracle claim might be unlikely. I agree that if these things (e.g. the alleged absurdity of masturbation being sinful, the untrustworthiness of the historical data etc.) really are compelling, this would be a good reason not to believe in this claim. However, despite my use of the Resurrection in my post, I wasn’t actually wanting to discuss any particular example."

This is why I originally wrote:

“I’d like to cordially invite tildeb to show (in the comments section of this post) what he thinks the implicit contradiction(s) between these two propositions are.

As opposed to:

“I’d like tildeb to give me his best arguments about how he thinks the historical evidence for the Resurrection isn’t reliable etc.”

Aborted foetuses used to heat UK hospitals.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10717566/Aborted-babies-incinerated-to-heat-UK-hospitals.html

"When the Carthaginians were prevailed upon to cease sacrificing their babies, at least the place vacated by Baal reminded them that they should seek the divine above themselves; we offer up our babies to "my" freedom of choice, to "me." No society's moral vision has ever, surely, been more degenerate than that."

David Bentley Hart - Christ and Nothing

Quote: D.B. Hart

 “Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call 'after-birth abortion' (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

Abstract from "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva

“... the autistic or Down syndrome or otherwise disabled child, for instance, for whom the world can remain a perpetual perplexity, which can too often cause pain but perhaps only vaguely and fleetingly charm or delight; the derelict or wretched or broken man or woman who has wasted his or her life away; the homeless, the utterly impoverished, the diseased, the mentally ill, the physically disabled; exiles, refugees, fugitives; even criminals and reprobates. To reject, turn away from, or kill any or all of them would be, in a very real sense, the most purely practical of impulses. To be able, however , to see in them not only something of worth but indeed something potentially godlike, to be cherished and adored, is the rarest and most ennoblingly unrealistic capacity ever bred within human souls.

David Bentley Hart, Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and its Fashionable Enemies

I Believe in Miracles. So where ya from?

A common objection to the possibility of miracles is the following:

“If we consider miracles as a possible explanation, then doing science will become impossible, because it’s always possible that God might be miraculously interfering with the results of the experiments.”

One commenter named "tildeb" (with whom I discussed abortion here) has recently, along these lines, accused Christians of "denying science" by believing in the Resurrection.

Consider two potential miracles:

1. You leave a cake with blue icing on the table. You go out of the room. You come back in and see your four-year-old child with crumbs and blue smudges around their mouth. The child says “An angel told me that God has miraculously destroyed the cake.”

2. A man claims that God will miraculously levitate the Sydney Opera House 100 metres into the sky in one month’s time. 10,000 eyewitnesses report that the Opera House did indeed levitate.

Now, some might say that we could never ultimately be epistemically justified in postulating a miracle in either situation. But I think most people would recognise that, in the 1^st situation, it certainly is less likely that a miracle has occurred. Why? Because of our background knowledge. If somebody said “I’ve only set my oven to 200 degrees Celsius, but my thermometer says that it’s 210 degrees inside the oven. It must be a miracle!” I think I would rightly reject that explanation, not because it is miraculous, but because it is contrived. Even if we allow for the possibility of miracles, we are still able to examine each case on its own merits.

Thus, a person can indeed consistently affirm the results of modern science concerning cell biology, the carbon cycle, etc. without necessarily excluding miracles from their possible pool of explanations.

Unless he's been convinced by this post, I'd like to cordially invite tildeb to show (in the comments section of this post) what he thinks the implicit contradiction(s) between these two propositions are:

1. We have very good reasons, drawn from modern medical science, to believe that a human body cannot return to life via the processes which normally operate in our world.

2. Jesus rose from the dead, by a miraculous act of God.

The Tolerance Buzzsaw II

"The Matthew Shepard case is a landmark case that paved a lot of ground for hate crime legislation. With what is going on in the world, homophobia at the Sochi Olympics, Kill-the-Gays Bill in Uganda, it is extremely inappropriate to publish such material regardless of whether or not it is true, especially if you yourself identify as a "gay man." In this case, assuming that what this author claims is true, the "lie" is much much more beneficial to society than the "truth." "

Uria Salvatore

The Tolerance Buzzsaw

"Gay marriage, like all civil rights, isn’t really something you can have an opinion on. The only opinion you can morally, legitimately have, is whether or not you want to have a gay marriage. Your opinion on whether gay people should be allowed to get married isn’t so much an opinion on a two-sided question, as it is a determining factor in whether you are a bigoted person."

Jeremy Deeks

Remembrance Day 2013

O valiant hearts who to your glory came
Through dust of conflict and through battle flame;
Tranquil you lie, your knightly virtue proved,
Your memory hallowed in the land you loved.

Splendid you passed, the great surrender made;
Into the light that nevermore shall fade;
Deep your contentment in that blest abode,
Who wait the last clear trumpet call of God.

Long years ago, as earth lay dark and still,
Rose a loud cry upon a lonely hill,
While in the frailty of our human clay,
Christ, our Redeemer, passed the self same way.

Still stands His Cross from that dread hour to this,
Like some bright star above the dark abyss;
Still, through the veil, the Victors pitying eyes
Look down to bless our lesser Calvaries.

O Risen Lord, O Shepherd of our dead,
Whose cross has bought them and Whose staff has led,
In glorious hope their proud and sorrowing land
Commits her children to Thy gracious hand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6q6Z_FonF0