Religion, Miracles, and Science
Here are a couple of videos I’ve found. Much is drawn from essays by C.S. Lewis, found in God in the Dock.
[Facebook: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YBBgN0fZV0 ]
[Facebook: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlSyTxICU2Y ]
October 14, 2009 9:44 pm 2 Comments
Other Links to this Post
-
Kylie Batt — May 19, 2010 @ 2:24 am
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Subscribe
By Benjamin, October 20, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
Thank you for posting these videos by John Lennox. I think that there is a lot of common sense contained in them that I wish was a good deal more “common.” Yet, I think there are some important distortions as well. In terms of historical accuracy, it might be pointed out, for example, that Hume never rejected the reality of causation. He accepted it wholeheartedly. He simply did not believe that our beliefs and our knowledge about causation were sufficiently warranted or justified because of the lack of deductive foundations for them and what he saw as the question begging nature of an inductive justification. So he did actually accept the obvious reality of causation.
Now, one might argue that, if this is true, it would merely force Mr. Lennox to slightly alter his argument. The objection doesn’t disprove it. We might say now that, though Hume didn’t contradict himself, strictly speaking, he still criticized the notion of real miracles on the back of an assumption he did not believe was justified. But I think even at this crucial point Hume would not be quite finished. He needn’t adopt the view of causality himself. He only has to point out that causality is accepted and considered warranted by those who advocate the miraculous, and, if so, then it would seem to introduce an internal conflict based upon his original observations.
Nevertheless, I believe Hume was badly wrong for other reasons, one of many of which was hinted at by Lennox. But this does reveal, I believe, part of the larger problem with Lennox’s method. Ultimately, even in speaking of “God,” he never really admits Yahweh into the conversation. He rather adopts a course of reasoning that would exclude our Father from the whole question because of the assumptions which arise from his approach to the question itself. Is this really the way we want to converse about Him? Isn’t this missing the real point at the heart of every objection to our Beloved?
A few thoughts to consider…