Materialism is a myth. The miracle is the sober fact
wordsof...@email.com
PETER KREEFT
The modern sceptic typically assumes that everything we experience can
be explained by the sciences without any supernatural agency, any God,
any miracles? Here are twelve common forms this objection takes in our
day along with twelve responses.
In the Summa, Saint Thomas could find only two objections to belief in
God. One of them is the problem of evil. The other is, essentially, the
problem of the miraculous, the supernatural. (God and miracles go
together as supernatural actor and supernatural acts.) Can't everything
we experience be explained by the sciences without any supernatural
agency, any God, any miracles? Here are twelve common forms this
objection takes in our day.
"Science has disproved miracles. Belief in miracles was possible in
prescientific eras, but not today, in the era of science."
Which science has disproved miracles? How? By what proof? What
discovery? Who proved it? When? No one can answer these specific
questions. Instead, the objector appeals to a vague, dreamy abstraction
called Science with a capital S. That is not science; that is religion
- bad religion.
"People used to believe in miracles only because they didn't know the
scientific explanations for events. For instance, they thought an angry
god, Zeus, hurled thunderbolts down from heaven only because they
didn't know about electrical energy. Once they knew that, Zeus
disappeared."
Yes, modern science has explained away some of the things some of the
ancients thought miraculous, like thunderbolts. But it has not
explained away any of the miracles in the New Testament. Science has
not made the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection or the feeding of the
five thousand one bit less miraculous.
"But the science of the future will do just that. Just as modern
science has explained away some of what the ancients thought
miraculous, future science will explain away all of what we think
miraculous."
This objection is a religious faith, not science. What science will do
tomorrow, no one knows today, and we cannot argue scientifically from
what is not known.
"The true meaning of a miracle is anything that excites wonder and
joy and love. Human love is the real miracle, in the only important
sense of the word."
Nature and human acts are miracles only in the same sense that everyone
is a Christian - an empty and meaningless sense. You can empty any
word of meaning by stretching it so thin that it covers everything.
Sunsets and babies and acts of love are wonderful and beautiful, but
they are not miracles. Miracle means supernatural wonder, not natural
wonder.
"The world has its own laws and stands on its own. Once we stopped
seeing t he world as a mere stage set moved about at will by arbitrary
gods, we stopped believing in miracles."
Exactly the opposite is true! Only if you believe in a world that
stands on its own, a world with natural laws inherent in it, can you
believe in miralces. The two presuppositions of miralces are a
transcendent God and a distinct world of nature with inherent laws. If
there are no natural laws, there are no supernatural exceptions to
them. Atheists, pagans, and pantheists cannot believe in miralces:
atheists because they have no supernatural God to perform them; pagans
because their gods are part of nature; pantheists because their God is
the whole of nature. Atheists and pagans have no God outside nature;
pantheists have no nature outside God.
"Belief in miracles contradicts the laws of science, which tell us
that things like virgin births simply do not happen."
Science does not tell us what always happens. It certainly does not
tell us what can or cannot happen. Science's laws are only
generalizations from our observations of how nature usually works. They
do not forbid exceptions.
Miracles do not contradict the laws of science any more than a gift of
extra money contradicts a bank balance. It is an addition, not a
subtraction. Dropping food into a goldfish bowl does not contradict the
ecology of the fishbowl. A presidential pardon does not contradict the
usual laws of the courts. Supernatural events do not contradict natural
events. Science tells us what agencies operate in nature, not what
agencies, if any, operate outside it.
"Belief in miracles demeans nature and the integrity and identity of
nature."
Miracles no more demean nature than a husband demeans a wife, A miracle
is like Father God impregnating Mother Nature. It fulfills, not
demeans, her. In fact, only supernaturalists can appreciate nature for
the same reason that only those who know a foreign language can
appreciate their own, and only those who face death can appreciate
life: you appreciate a thing only by contrast. If nature means simply
everything - well, everything is not a topic about which we can feel
very passionate. Everything has no character, only every thing does.
Only if nature is a thing does she have character - and she is a
thing only to a supernaturalist.
"The issue of miracles is not really important; the essence of
religion is not at stake here."
That depends on which religion you mean. No other religion but
Christianity absolutely demands belief in miracles. Disbelieve in
miracles and you have not lost anything essential to Islam, Hinduism,
Buddhism, Confucianism, or modern Judaism (as distinct from Biblical
Judaism); but disbelieve in miracles and you are, quite simply, not a
Christian. Christianity is essentially the good news of the
Incarnation, Atonement, and Resurrection, not an abstract set of
timeless ethical truths.
"The miracle stories were added to the Bible later."
There is absolutely no textual or historical evidence whatever for this
common assumption, only guesswork or prejudice. However, miracles
stories were added later to many other religions, and even contradict
the original idea. For instance, the story of Mohammed flying to the
moon on his horse contradicts Mohammed's insistence that the Koran be
his only miracle, And Buddha taught that anyone who performed a miracle
was not teaching his dharma (doctrine) because a miracle would
encourage belief in the illusion of the separate, objective material
world.
"Ah, but we must interpret the Bible in light of our own sincerely
held, honest beliefs. If we do not believe in miracles, the most
charitable interpretation of the Bible's miracle stories is to accept
them as myth and symbol, not to reject them as lies."
Perhaps that is charitable, but it is not clearheaded or even honest
- and therefore it is not charitable either. We must not interpret
the Bible (or any other book) in light of our own beliefs but in light
of the author's beliefs. The objector is confusing interpretation with
belief. You may believe in capitalism, but please do not interpret
Marx' Das Kapital as procapitalist. That would be imposing your views
on the author, assuming that he must believe the same things you do.
That is not charitable; that is arrogant. Yet it is amazing how common
this arrogant mistake is when "scholars" interpret the Bible.
"Jesus' Resurrection is the central miracle claimed by traditional
Christians. But isn't it crass, crude, vulgar, and materialistic to
insist on the literal, physical meaning of the Resurrection, on the
biological reunification of Jesus' molecules? Isn't it the resurrection
of Easter faith in the disciples' (and our) hearts that really
matters?"
Easter faith in what if Easter did not really happen? Faith in faith?
That is a hall of mirrors. If there is no Resurrection, there is no
faith, for there is no object for faith to believe in. "If Christ is
not raised from the dead, your faith is vain", insists Saint Paul.
Death is a crass, crude, vulgar, and materialistic problem. It needs a
crass, crude, vulgar, and materialistic solution, like the resurrection
of the body. What set the ancient world on fire was not faith in faith,
a psychology, a philosophy, or an ethic, but the astonishing news that
God became man, died, and rose from death to save us from sin and
death.
"A non-miraculous explanation of the Resurrection (and of any other
miracle) is more likely, more reasonable."
Which explanation? None of the alternatives suggested works. If Jesus
did not really rise from the dead, three questions are unanswerable:
Who moved the stone? Who got the body? and Who started the Resurrection
myth and why? What profit did the liars get out of their lie?
I will tell you what they got out of it. They got mocked, hated,
sneered and jeered at, exiled, deprived of property and reputation and
rights, imprisoned, whipped, tortured, clubbed to a pulp, beheaded,
crucified, boiled in oil, sawed in pieces, fed to lions, and cut to
ribbons by gladiators. If the miracle of the Resurrection did not
really happen, then an even more incredible miracle happened: twelve
Jewish fishermen invented the world's biggest lie for no reason at all
and died for it with joy, as did millions of others. This myth, this
lie, this elaborate practical joke transformed lives, gave despairing
souls a reason to live and selfish souls a reason to die, gave cynics
joy and libertines conscience, put martyrs in the hymns and hymns in
the martyrs - all for no reason. A fantastic con job, a myth, a joke.
A myth indeed. That idea is the myth. The miracle is the sober fact.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Kreeft, Peter. "Miracles." Chapter 9 in Fundamentals of the Faith.
(San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), 64-68.
Reprinted by permission of Ignatius Press. All rights reserved.
Fundamentals of the Faith - ISBN 0-89870-202-X.
THE AUTHOR
Peter Kreeft has written extensively (over 25 books) in the areas of
Christian apologetics. Link to all of Peter Kreeft's books here.
Peter Kreeft teaches at Boston College in Boston Massachusetts. He is
on the Advisory Board of the Catholic Educator's Resource Center.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0021.html
firel...@hotmail.com
> Miracles
>
> PETER KREEFT
>
>
> The modern sceptic typically assumes that everything we experience can
> be explained by the sciences without any supernatural agency, any God,
> any miracles? Here are twelve common forms this objection takes in our
> day along with twelve responses.
You're asking science to prove that the fables in your
Bible have rational explanations. You don't like the
most reasonable response, "the rational explanation is
that they're just fables".
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
Uncle Al
>
> Miracles
>
> PETER KREEFT
>
> The modern sceptic typically assumes that everything we experience can
> be explained by the sciences without any supernatural agency, any God,
> any miracles?
Pray on a lightbulb, a fluorescent lamp, an LED, or a once-struck
match. We'll wait. Northern Ireland: Never ascribe to Godly miracles
what can be explained by human stupidity.
> THE AUTHOR
>
> Peter Kreeft has written extensively (over 25 books) in the areas of
> Christian apologetics.
[snip more crap]
Stop apologizing. Fucking just shut up.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Sam Wormley
> Miracles
>
Religion and physics are orthogonal.
See: http://www.csicop.org/si/9907/
donsto...@hotmail.com
pantheism. Then science and religion blend into the single cybernetic
worldview. Then go raise pecans, do something useful for Humanity
rather than waste time on this subsystem "physics" and take dumps on
each other's heads ad actualized infinity. Sorry - ewe guise like to
give orders to systems with free will who will just ignore ewe, I just
thought I'd get in on the fun , too. Have a nice day!!! Address your
issues!!!!!
Uncle Vic
made the light shine upon us with this:
> Miracles
are either misunderstood random natural events, or unwitnessed claims made
by the pious.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Chris H
> scientific explanations for events. For instance, they thought an angry
> god, Zeus, hurled thunderbolts down from heaven only because they
> didn't know about electrical energy. Once they knew that, Zeus
> disappeared."
This is just too funny, I was told by the nuns at my primary school that
thunder was god moving his furniture about, I kid you not. I was only
about five and I used to (apparently) come home shit scared about death
from what the priest and nuns used to tell me. Fortunately I had
sensible parents who told them sod off and I went to a normal school.
> Yes, modern science has explained away some of the things some of the
> ancients thought miraculous, like thunderbolts.
>
> [snip rubbish]
--
C.
JohnN
wordsof...@email.com wrote:
> Miracles
>
> PETER KREEFT (author)
>
>
> "People used to believe in miracles only because they didn't know the
> scientific explanations for events. For instance, they thought an angry
> god, Zeus, hurled thunderbolts down from heaven only because they
> didn't know about electrical energy. Once they knew that, Zeus
> disappeared."
>
Ben Franklin demonstrated lightning was electricity in the 18th
century, ce. How many people actually worshipped Zeus at the time of
the American Revolution?
Kreeft's self-imposed ignorance of science and history is not cause for
belief in any diety.
JohnN
enki
Bible have rational explanations. You don't like the
most reasonable response, "the rational explanation is
that they're just fables".
Yes, but the facts are not what is im portant but the statments of
morality they make. The world wasn't created in seven days. The idea
that we are created in the image of a loving god. That makes the moral
stament that we all have value and are in some sence equal.
I can argue that the Nazies were highly moral people by changing
assumptions.
Mani Deli
>Miracles
>
>PETER KREEFT
>
>
>The modern sceptic typically assumes that everything we experience can
>be explained by the sciences
This part of a sentence is already bullshit.
The rest snipped
Mani Deli
>This is just too funny, I was told by the nuns at my primary school that
>thunder was god moving his furniture about, I kid you not. I was only
>about five and I used to (apparently) come home shit scared about death
>from what the priest and nuns used to tell me. Fortunately I had
>sensible parents who told them sod off and I went to a normal school.
>
All religions start by scaring the shit out of little kids. It seems
that not too many have enough brains to get over it.
Lizz Holmans
wrote:
>>
>All religions start by scaring the shit out of little kids. It seems
>that not too many have enough brains to get over it.
'Mom, they made me *sit down* for 15 minutes before we got to do stuff
with crayons !'
Lizz' First-Day School isn't very scary. Now the *children*--they
scare the crap out of me' Holmans
--
I was too far out all my life
Gregory L. Hansen
Chris H <N...@None.no> wrote:
>wordsof...@email.com wrote:
>> Miracles
>>
>> PETER KREEFT
>> [snip rubbish]
>> "People used to believe in miracles only because they didn't know the
>> scientific explanations for events. For instance, they thought an angry
>> god, Zeus, hurled thunderbolts down from heaven only because they
>> didn't know about electrical energy. Once they knew that, Zeus
>> disappeared."
>
>This is just too funny, I was told by the nuns at my primary school that
>thunder was god moving his furniture about, I kid you not. I was only
>about five and I used to (apparently) come home shit scared about death
>from what the priest and nuns used to tell me. Fortunately I had
>sensible parents who told them sod off and I went to a normal school.
I was told the angels were bowling.
I figured out on my own that when it rains, that's God taking a leak.
--
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
-- Benjamin Franklin
firel...@hotmail.com
> You're asking science to prove that the fables in your
> Bible have rational explanations. You don't like the
> most reasonable response, "the rational explanation is
> that they're just fables".
>
> Yes, but the facts are not what is im portant but the statments of
> morality they make.
Sounds like you agree with me that wordsoftruth's original
post was nonsense.
Nosterill
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> In article <43039162$0$38039$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk>,
> Chris H <N...@None.no> wrote:
> >wordsof...@email.com wrote:
> >> Miracles
> >>
> >> PETER KREEFT
> >> [snip rubbish]
> >> "People used to believe in miracles only because they didn't know the
> >> scientific explanations for events. For instance, they thought an angry
> >> god, Zeus, hurled thunderbolts down from heaven only because they
> >> didn't know about electrical energy. Once they knew that, Zeus
> >> disappeared."
> >
> >This is just too funny, I was told by the nuns at my primary school that
> >thunder was god moving his furniture about, I kid you not. I was only
> >about five and I used to (apparently) come home shit scared about death
> >from what the priest and nuns used to tell me. Fortunately I had
> >sensible parents who told them sod off and I went to a normal school.
>
> I was told the angels were bowling.
I understand that Gabriel bowled a wicked off cutter :-)
(Don't expect this to make sense if you are American or mainland
European)
> I figured out on my own that when it rains, that's God taking a leak.
And when it snows, he's combing his hair.
Mani Deli
wrote:
Seems he's farting a lot lately. I suspect with our Slob in the White
House he's getting ready to take a huge shit.
Autymn D. C.
virgin births: artificial insemination, parthenogenesis (virgin or
fatherless birth), (kinda) hermafroditic self-insemination (One in
several dozen thousand women can fuck themselves and breed.)
belief in miracles: All religions call for it as all deities are
miraculous. What a stinky red herring! Ugliness is correlated with
cretinism and with schizofrenia. I can tell who is a Christian by how
ugly, fat, or dumb their faces look, and how slowly they talk (two
chemistry professors of mine); faith and piety are congenital and
inherited diseases. How else does one explain the Amish and
Pentacostals? They're inbred a lot, those pieces of shit. What's
ironic is that inbreeding (setting up demes) is essential for micro-
and macroevolution. Maybe if they keep doing it, they'll find Darwin.
Though they'll take the mutations first as heavenly signs not to have
so much sex, which is why progress is so slow in their parts. If
people really wanted to meet their God, they would already have killed
themselves. But life is hupocritical and unavoidable. One cannot die
without the chance of being born again, having nothing to do with God.
resurrection: Death is well-enough solved by reincarnation and
resuscitation, each having gobs more evidence than resurrection.
Coming back as a ghost doesn't count. Marturs have no bearing on
redemption. Whoever scared away the lone watchman, who never told back
anything, moved the stone. It's obvious that the authors started the
muth to get the Romans off the Jews' back by giving them a different
and greater hope after converting them. Judaism, the bad cop, was
turned into the good cop with Jesuism. Constantine, the mad and
desperate dumbass, who looked like Marshall Applewhite in his later
days, fell for the rubbish peaceloving beliefs, which is why the Romans
fell to German and Turkish invaders who didn't share them. (If you
want to bring down a nation, teach them Christianity. Not that they
must practice what they preach, which is why going to war as America
does to preserve America must be done antiChristianly, though this
loophole is mostly ignored.) However, the authors had to plagiarise a
bunch of Eastern pagan religions to stitch together Christianity, as
the Romans hadn't learnt of those stories before. The New Testament is
not supported by prerequisite cave drawings or pottery, and it was
written almost two generations after the passing of their events.
If one wants to discuss performing so-called miracles, one must bring
in a supergenius sofofile, not a scientist, theologian, or cunic.
(I'll trust that Kreeft sees what I'm doing with Greek.)
-Aut
I'm taking down the world.