Miracles: a Preliminary Study (C. Lewis Signature Classic) (C. S. Lewis Signature Classic)

Product Information

And it's invaluable as a reference for future studies on this topic. It is a diamond mine of sources and witnesses and further reading for those interested in taking this study a little further. Kilgallen, John J. (1989). A Brief Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, Paulist Press, ISBN 0809130599

The argument holds that if, as thoroughgoing naturalism entails, all of our thoughts are the effect of a physical cause, then there is no reason for assuming that they are also the consequent of a reasonable ground. Knowledge, however, is apprehended by reasoning from ground to consequent. Therefore, if naturalism were true, there would be no way of knowing it, or anything else not the direct result of a physical cause. [1] Supernatural explanations... should be welcome on the scholarly table along with other explanations often discussed.'Lewis asserts that by this logic, the statement "I have reason to believe naturalism is valid" is self-referentially incoherent in the same manner as the sentence "One of the words of this sentence does not have the meaning that it appears to have", or the statement "I never tell the truth". [2] In each case, to assume the veracity of the conclusion would eliminate the possibility of valid grounds from which to reach it. To summarize the argument in the book, Lewis quotes J.B.S. Haldane who appeals to a similar line of reasoning. Haldane states "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." [3] Revisions [ edit ] I do not think that it is the duty of the Christian apologist (as skeptics suppose) to disprove all stories of the miraculous which fall outside the Christian records…. I am in no way committed to the assertion that God has never worked miracles through and for pagans or never permitted created supernatural beings to do so…. There is an inescapable feature of this book that will automatically condemn it in many skeptics’ minds: it relies on eyewitness accounts. Try as he might to make the book ‘scientific’, one cannot avoid relying on eyewitnesses to gather stories about miracles. However, it also must be said, that puts this book more in the genre of history rather than science. Historical events, by nature, happen once, and historians must rely on eyewitnesses to gather information about an event. Once they gather information, they sift through it to see which data are most plausible and which conclusions most sensible. So, when skeptics complain that Mr. Keener’s book relies on eyewitness accounts and is thus unreliable, we have to ask if those skeptics are equally dismissive of historical accounts on the same logic. Further, the sheer volume of reputable eyewitness accounts surely must count for something. By analogy: though the evidence for aliens is not conclusive (at least in my mind), the number of reported alien encounters and UFO sightings must be taken seriously rather than dismissed out of hand. In the healing of the man with a withered hand, [27] the Synoptics state that Jesus entered a synagogue on Sabbath and found a man with a withered hand, whom Jesus healed, having first challenged the people present to decide what was lawful for Sabbath—to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill. The Gospel of Mark adds that this angered the Pharisees so much that they started to contemplate killing Jesus.

In 1948, as part of the regular Socratic Club meeting at Oxford, Elizabeth Anscombe, an analytic philosopher, brought forward some critiques of Lewis’s argument in this section (Chapter 3) of Miracles. Without going into all the details, the general thrust of the debate went as follows. In the original version of Miracles, which Anscombe was critiquing, Lewis had slightly overstated his case. He had argued that when we find that a belief results from chance, we discount it. Anscombe pointed out, in essence, that a belief arising from non rational sources just might happen to give a right answer. She asked him: “What is the connection between grounds and the actual occurrence of the belief?” There are stories in late Buddhism about the Buddha doing miracles. But since he held that nature is illusory, why would he be concerned with miraculous demonstrations on the level of nature? One early story contains a discussion of Buddha with a man who was sitting by a lake meditating so that he could walk across on the water. Buddha’s advice was to take the ferry. Lewis comments: Your point about the Bible just saying “act of power” is helpful. Such acts are also associated with the word “sign”, as if the important thing is to point elsewhere, such as to the kingdom of God, God Himself, or the gospel message. In that sense, I once looked at every miracle in Acts, and noted that the vast majority are associated with people coming to believe. Similarly, Jesus performed healings when asked by John’s disciples if He was the Messiah — the acts pointed to the answer.Philosophers and scientists including Victor Reppert, William Hasker, and Alvin Plantinga have expanded on the "Argument from reason" and credit Lewis with first bringing the argument to light in Miracles. [1] The Making of American Liberal Theology: Imagining Progressive Religion 1805–1900, edited by Gary J. Dorrien (Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), passim, search miracles.

But on what basis are the miracles dismissed? Really? People said that they saw them. People were convinced by them, some of them convinced enough to die. Those two statements are historical fact. Those two statements are, in fact, something that we "really" know. Lewis makes a case for the reality of miracles by presenting the position that something more than nature, a supernatural world, may exist, including a benevolent creator likely to intervene in reality after creation. Bonus Post Out of Left Field: Jim Palmer, John Pavlovitz, and my Irritation with Such Bile (ah yes, you're intrigued, aren't you?)Contemporary liberal Christians may prefer to read Jesus's miracles as metaphorical narratives for understanding the power of God. [65] Not all theologians with liberal inclinations reject the possibility of miracles, but may reject the polemicism that denial or affirmation entails. [66] Bersee, Ton (2021). On the Meaning of 'Miracle' in Christianity. An Evaluation of the Current Miracle Debate and a Proposal of a Balanced Hermeneutical Approach. Peeters Publishers, Leuven. ISBN 9789042943957 Miracles with Counselors, David Aldrich Osgood, University of Massachusetts Amherst (1991), Transpersonal Psychology and A Course in Miracles P.43 https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5794&context=dissertations_1 Accounts of Jesus performing miracles are also found outside the New Testament. Later, 2nd century texts, called Infancy Gospels, narrate Jesus performing miracles during his childhood.