Lately I have been evaluating the debate between Evidentialism and Presuppositionalism. Evidentialism lays claim to God's miracles as in its arsenal of proofs to be used by the evidential apologist. It attacks Presuppositionalism for not using miracles as proofs in that particular apologetic system.
I would like to know what the other madmen/women around here think of this: I think Evidentialism is off base here because, in my mind, it shouldn't consider miracles as evidence. The creation is constantly before us and can be appealed to as a proof that the existence of a creator is necessary (much more could of course be discussed on this issue.) Miracles, however, cannot be duplicated and referred to as evidence. Moreover, and this is my thrust, miracles are a part of the testimony of Scripture and the appeal Scripture is that to which Presuppositionalism is based on in the first place. Presuppositionalism appeals to the testimony of Scripture out of a belief that only it can conquer the suppressed knowledge of God in the fallen man's mind - miracles fall in the category of the testimony of Scripture, not of empirical evidence.
Therefore, Evidentialism is wrong to even consider miracles as proofs in apologetics and certainly wrong for attacking Presuppositionalism for failing to use them.
What say you? Do miracles belong in the category of a) the testimony of Scripture, b) empirical evidence for today's use, or c) both?
1 comment:
I may be going out on a limb here, but...
I think that it may be somewhat ridiculous, if not absurd, to use miracles as evidence (of/for what?) in apologetics. How would you go about proving that the miracle was actually a miracle?
I think of an illustration that C.S. Lewis provided once. This was under a different context (that of prayer). He wrote that there is simply no way of naturally proving a causal connection between a prayer and the thing prayed for. How do we know that what happened wasn't going to happen anyway? (I'm not denying miracles here, and neither was Lewis; he is simply providing an reasonable claim that says there is no way of naturally proving a causal connection between supernatural events and interesting, unexplained occurrences)
I tend to think that you can't use miracles as proofs simply because they are supernatural things that cannot be analyzed by science.
But half-way into writing this post, I'm almost also convinced that one can use miracles as proofs but in a different sort of way. Simply because we can't prove miracles scientifically doesn't mean that miracles don't occur. There are plenty of things that we cannot observe and experience with our physical faculties, and there is no way of proving those things, but there is no denying that those things are things which exist and are such things as they are. Also, we can know with certainty that things like miracles occur without having proved them. Let me provide an example.
Let's say that my name (which, at present, will remain undisclosed) is John Adam Prichet. Okay, John Adam Prichet. How do you know that that's your name? "Well, I know that that's my name because I have a birth certificate that says that's my name." What if the doctors who signed that got it wrong? "Well, people call me John Adam Prichet." True, but what if they were all playing a sick joke on you and made up that name? "Well, my parents named me John Adam Prichet." Still, what if they got it wrong? What if your name is truly something else?
In John Adam Prichet's case, he has no way of proving that his name is actually John Adam Prichet. But he doesn't doubt that that's his name. Simply because I can't prove miracles according to the faulty practices of science doesn't mean that they do not occur. In which case, miracles could be used as a means of explaining unexplainable events and as a means of proof (for a supernatural being?).
Again, that's a lot of words and thoughts on what might be a very thin branch.
Let me know if it cracks and I'll get off...
Post a Comment