Monday, July 30, 2012

Why Miracles Aren't More Documented


Though I've given some examples of miracle accounts that are supported by a lot of evidence, people often ask why there aren't more such accounts. Why isn't there more documentation of miracles, especially miracles that supposedly have occurred in our era of widespread technology, political freedoms, and other advantages? Asking why there isn't more evidence doesn't explain the evidence we have. Still, why isn't there more?

Part of the answer is the mindset most people have. Most people don't have much concern about arguing for or documenting most of their beliefs, not just their beliefs about miracles. They have a lack of interest in such things, a lack of interest that cuts across many contexts in life. And the large majority of people are already convinced that miracles happen, which gives them even less motivation to keep the sort of records some of us would like to have. Those of us who live in highly prosperous and free nations, like the United States, often neglect the fact that most people live in an environment that's much less conducive to producing documentation. In many parts of the world, there are no hospitals, or hospital records are more difficult to attain. Most people don't carry a camera or some other such recording device with them wherever they go. Even those who do probably won't always think to record significant events they encounter, or they may fail to sufficiently record what they wanted to (their attempt to record the event was too late, the footage is unclear, etc.). In some cases, the nature of the miracle makes it less likely to be documented much. Some miracles involve issues people want to keep private, such as the healing of an embarrassing illness. And so on.

Craig Keener provides many examples of difficulties he and others have encountered in the process of trying to document miracle accounts. Here are some representative examples:

As Christiaan de Wet noted to me in correspondence (March 25, 2008), large numbers of miracles are being reported in Africa today, but few are "verified and recorded" to Western satisfaction "because of the nature and context of the miracles." In the cases I will mention later, where I was a witness (and not yet considering writing on the subject), I myself did not think to obtain medical documentation, did not know how to obtain it, and might well not have been granted access to it. In some cases, no doctor had been consulted, and in others it seemed too intrusive for me to ask or to press persons who were busy to go to the trouble of obtaining it after I had asked….

Whereas most cured people do not retain or even know how to obtain medical records, this man, being a physician, did so, and provided me extensive copies detailing his test results. (I leave him unnamed here at his request, to protect his privacy and that of his medical colleagues whose names appear on the records, but this information is in my possession.)…

Moreover, of the people I interviewed who had been examined both before and after their recovery, most had no idea how to obtain medical documentation or initially even what I meant by it….

Some people eagerly offered to supply me old documentation but subsequently failed to find it in their many boxes of old papers. Most people would not spend hours looking for it simply to help a professor writing a book; in one case, someone who knew me did spend more than a workday looking for it but had an entire garage full of boxes….

In their sphere of relationships [in some cultures], people take other people's word for what they have witnessed; to ask for documentation is to communicate hostile suspicion. I can eventually overcome much suspicion, but I cannot get them to re-create documentation they have long since discarded as irrelevant, even if they obtained it to begin with (which is usually not the case)….

The reporter [investigating miracle claims] also discovered that medical documentation could be difficult to procure for logistical reasons, such as one hospital destroying outpatient records after ten years, attending physicians having died, or particular physicians failing to respond to requests….I discovered that people often did not know that they had a right to access their medical records. In some other cases, people requested documentation several times and were not able to obtain it within the months before my book was due to the publisher. Obtaining records might be among patients' rights, but that does not mean that busy professionals will always hasten to their assistance (in some cases perhaps especially if they fear that they might be cited in support of a professionally unusual conclusion in which they have no stake, or if apparent irregularities could even be potentially cited legally against them). In some cultures, patients lacked access to medical records, as the hospitals refused to share them….

All this to say that while it is reasonable to expect that some cases will be medically documented (and they are), it is not reasonable to dismiss all firsthand testimonies that lack such documentation, especially in places where people cannot be expected to have access to it (or perhaps even to treatment)….

Given the unpredictability of substantial healing claims and their dominance in places where they are most needed (i.e., where medical treatment is least available), it is not surprising that doctors are not usually personally present when a nonmedical healing occurs.

(Miracles [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2011], n. 256 on 256, 439, 658, nn. 84 and 85 on 658, 659-660, 662) 

61 comments:

  1. It'd be nice for God to simply regenerate an amputated limb and have someone post it on youtube and be done with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You act as if God would only perform miracles for their evidentiary value. To prove himself. But in many or most cases, that's not the purpose. He performs miracles in merciful answer to prayer. Or even apart from prayer, but to meet a need. It's not generally to prove himself to unbelievers, but to minister to believers.

      And, of course, if there were a youtube healing, unbelievers would say that's faked, like CGI.

      Delete
  2. Our last encounter was not what I wanted it to be, again my apologies, I find these posts very informative and have purchase Craig Keener's work on miracles. I do hope you have a nice week.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve said, "You act as if God would only perform miracles for their evidentiary value. To prove himself. But in many or most cases, that's not the purpose. He performs miracles in merciful answer to prayer. Or even apart from prayer, but to meet a need. It's not generally to prove himself to unbelievers, but to minister to believers."

    Disagree with some of the first part of your response. I don't presume to know why God does or doesn't seem to do the types of New Testament miracles today...and why we don't seem to have iron-clad documented proof of miracles today. It seemed in the New Testament that the "purpose" of the miracles "was" to validate and prove that Jesus Christ was the Messiah spoken of in prophecy.

    "And, of course, if there were a youtube healing, unbelievers would say that's faked, like CGI."

    I do agree with this part of the comment...there are some hardcore unbelievers who would find an out if if a limb regenerated right in their presence.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steve, what purpose did Miracles serve in the New Testament? Were they not "signs" to validate that Jesus Christ was the Messiah and that the Apostles had Power from God? If so, why do you say that Miracles today would serve no such purpose as validation of God and Jesus and the true Power of today's emissaries of the Gospel?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i) NT miracles don't have a singular purpose. Neither do OT miracles. Some Biblical miracles have a revelatory function, but others are acts of divine mercy.

      ii) The Apostolic kergyma doesn't require continuous validation. One doesn't need to keep proving the same thing over and over again.

      iii) Of course, some missionaries do claim miraculous validation. Take Chinese pastors like John Sung and Pastor Hsi.

      Delete
  5. Steve said, "i) NT miracles don't have a singular purpose. Neither do OT miracles. Some Biblical miracles have a revelatory function, but others are acts of divine mercy."

    So, you do affirm that some Miracles in the OT and NT served as "revelatory function" correct?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steve said, "ii) The Apostolic kergyma doesn't require continuous validation. One doesn't need to keep proving the same thing over and over again. "

    Are you asserting that "no"...as in zero..."revelatory miracles" have occurred since the Apostolic Age?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think there are post-apostolic miracles. Some may be designed to attest a missionary, but I suspect most are simply acts of mercy. The only witness(es) would be the concerned party, or his inner circle

      Delete
    2. Steve, if there are "post apostolic miracles" that are "revelatory" in nature...and the purpose of "revelatory miracles" is to validate the emissary of God and the Gospel etc (as exampled in the OT and NT)...why then no "revelatory miracle" that can't be explained away by Skeptics if the purpose is "revelation"? Seems odd.

      On one hand you (and others) seem to argue that God used/uses "revelatory miracles" to affirm belief in unbelievers...but only non-educated unbelievers or uneducated gullible Benny Hinn show goers?

      If the purpose of "revelatory miracles" is to reveal God's power to an unbeliever...then lets see some true supernatural miracles in here in the US.

      I don't know why God doesn't seem to reveal Himself through the truly miraculous today like He did in the OT and NT...but He certainly doesn't seem to do it today...and I'd love nothing more than just one verifiable irrefutable "miracle".

      Delete
    3. Alex

      "...why then no 'revelatory miracle' that can't be explained away by Skeptics..."

      That's just your tendentious assertion.

      "On one hand you (and others) seem to argue that God used/uses 'revelatory miracles' to affirm belief in unbelievers...but only non-educated unbelievers..."

      That's a throwback to Humean bigotry.

      "I don't know why God doesn't seem to reveal Himself through the truly miraculous today like He did in the OT and NT...but He certainly doesn't seem to do it today..."

      You're assuming what you need to prove.

      "...and I'd love nothing more than just one verifiable irrefutable 'miracle'."

      You're dissembling.

      Delete
  7. Steve said, "iii) Of course, some missionaries do claim miraculous validation. Take Chinese pastors like John Sung and Pastor Hsi."

    Begs "Why aren't miracles more documented"...any documentation/empirical scrutiny of these miracles?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alex

      "Begs 'Why aren't miracles more documented'...any documentation/empirical scrutiny of these miracles?"

      If you have to ask, then you haven't studied the examples in question. I just gave you two leads. Go and do your own research.

      Delete
    2. I scoured the Medical Journals and any medically based, scientifically based source I could to find peer reviewed "miracles" by John Sung and Pastor Hsi. Nothing turned up. Can you please point me to those documented examples?

      Delete
    3. 1. Steve didn't say "medical journals," did he? He said "do your own research." It looks like "medical journals" is your own interpolation.

      2. Which medical journals did you scour?

      3. I doubt Sung or Hsi published in medical journals. Although Sung was a chemist with an earned doctorate, his focus was on theology, evangelism, missions, etc. So I doubt you'd find their accounts in medical journals anyway.

      4. You seem to assume peer reviewed medical journals and scientific sources are the best way to validate a "miracle." But why do you assume this?

      By the way, not all scientific sources are peer reviewed.

      As most scientists know, there are significant problems with peer review. Check out Dr. John Ioannidis' work for starters.

      Delete
    4. rocking said, "1. Steve didn't say "medical journals," did he? He said "do your own research." It looks like "medical journals" is your own interpolation."

      You seem to be asserting that Steve's prescription of "Do your own research" is the standard...which leaves it to Subjectivity as to what constitutes "evidence" and a "miracle"...with that standard...it's no wonder there are so many "miracles" in Charismania. Sloppy sloppy reasoning. "Evidence" must be quantified and validated as such, "Research" that relies in personal testimony is pretty weak sauce. It is what it is. Show me a "miracle" that has the goods. Where is the Case Study? Where is the before and after evidence? I would love to see one, I really would. "Do your own research" has led me to the conclusion thus far that you ain't got a real miracle today...so prove me wrong and show me one. Seems pretty simple.

      Delete
    5. Alex

      "Explanation: It seems that a medically verifiable, forensically verifiable peer reviewed 'miracle' would go a long way to answering Skeptics in a much stronger way."

      Actually, those you euphemistically call "Skeptics" usually tell us, in no uncertain terms, that they find the God of the Bible to be morally reprehensible. So they really don't care about the evidence for God's existence. They don't care about "peer reviewed" miracles.

      For even if they had the "iron-clad" evidence they pretentiously demand, that would be evidence for a God they already told us they can't stand.

      Delete
    6. Alex

      "I scoured the Medical Journals and any medically based, scientifically based source I could to find peer reviewed 'miracles' by John Sung and Pastor Hsi. Nothing turned up. Can you please point me to those documented examples?"

      Of course, that's the question-framing fallacy. You rig the question with tendentious conditions.

      Delete
    7. Alex

      "'Do your own research' has led me to the conclusion thus far that you ain't got a real miracle today...so prove me wrong and show me one. Seems pretty simple."

      I didn't merely say "do your own research." I gave you two specific leads to pursue. You're not arguing in good faith.

      Delete
    8. Alex said:

      "You seem to be asserting that Steve's prescription of 'Do your own research' is the standard..."

      No, I'm simply holding you to what Steve said. Seems pretty simple.

      "which leaves it to Subjectivity as to what constitutes 'evidence' and a 'miracle'...with that standard...it's no wonder there are so many "miracles" in Charismania. Sloppy sloppy reasoning."

      On the contrary, you're the one who's trying to put a strait jacket on what constitutes as "evidence". Seems pretty simple-minded.

      "'Evidence' must be quantified and validated as such,"

      Do you even know the first thing about medical research? If so, then why don't you explain to me the relevance of, say, confidence intervals and p values to evidence. Seems pretty simple. And this would be relevant to "quantifying" and "validating" the "evidence". We can move onto more advanced topics once you've gotten this down.

      "'Research' that relies in personal testimony is pretty weak sauce. It is what it is."

      Once again, you're just making assertions. Also, I didn't say "personal testimony" but eyewitness testimony. Anyway, where's your argument for why "testimony" is "pretty weak sauce"? After all, the Gospels are in large part eyewitness testimony. Hence, according to Alex, the evidence in the Gospels is "pretty weak sauce." Seems pretty simple-minded.

      "Show me a 'miracle' that has the goods. Where is the Case Study?"

      It's not as if case studies are controlled trials. At best, case studies constitute anecdotal evidence. As such, they wouldn't meet your own criteria. You're shooting yourself in the foot here. Seems pretty simple-minded.

      "so prove me wrong and show me one. Seems pretty simple."

      You yourself have already pre-rigged the terms of the debate such that you wouldn't believe it even if someone showed you one. Seems pretty simple-minded.

      Delete
  8. Alex,

    You're raising objections we've addressed before, including ones we've addressed within this series of threads on Keener's book. You don't seem to have done much research.

    Why should we think that God needs to produce "iron-clad documented proof"? In human affairs, we often produce less evidence for our claims than we could, since a lesser amount is sufficient. Why take the time and effort to produce more than what's needed? We might produce more than what's needed under some circumstances, such as if we're ignorant of the amount needed or if we want to avoid potential future disputes, but we often settle for the minimum amount needed or some other amount that's less than exhaustive. God would know how much evidence is needed to persuade those He wants to persuade, as well as how much is needed to demonstrate the evil character of other individuals, among other purposes He would have in determining the level of evidence that's available.

    As Steve noted, and as you conceded, there would be critics who would speculate that the video is fraudulent if a video of the healing of an amputee would be produced. Keener documents examples of that sort of skepticism in his book. For instance, he writes:

    "One scholar skeptical of supernatural approaches readily grants that the healings occur. He affirms that 'some utterly extraordinary cures' have occurred there [at Lourdes], noting that enemies of the Catholic Church and leading medical scientists like Alexis Carrel have been persuaded by the data. He concedes that some cases cannot even be explained psychosomatically; among examples, he lists 'the instant healing of a terribly disfigured face, and the instantaneous healing of a club foot on a two and one half year old child,' shown by non-Catholics to be permanent. Further, he cites a news article about a three-year-old with terminal cancer and the bones being eaten away; after the healing, even 'the bones in her skull grew back. Her doctor, a Protestant, said that 'miracle' would not be too strong a word to use.'" (685)

    Keener goes on to explain that this skeptical scholar dismisses these apparent miracles based on a belief in naturalism and a belief that miracles would interfere with science as he understands it (686).

    If you want us to believe that healing an amputee on video is the standard we should look for, you should explain why. Tell us why other forms of evidence we have aren't enough, such as the non-video evidence we have for the paranormal growth of body parts, our evidence for resurrections, or the evidence we have for the cumulative weight of multiple miracles. Why are those insufficient, but a video of the healing of an amputee would be sufficient? I would argue that we already have better evidence than what you're asking for, even though it doesn't take the form you're requesting.

    Objecting that there isn't a particular type of evidence for a particular type of miracle, such as video of a limb growing on an amputee, doesn't explain the other evidence you already have for other miracles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jason asked, "Why should we think that God needs to produce "iron-clad documented proof"?

      Answer: B/c Christians are the ones making that claims that God performs miracles (defined as supernatural healings not explained by natural physical law) and that these "miracles" have occurred in the Post-Apostolic Age.

      Delete
    2. Jason asked, " In human affairs, we often produce less evidence for our claims than we could, since a lesser amount is sufficient."

      Doesn't matter, that's Fallacy of Bandwagon and Fallacy of False Analogy. Your example doesn't necessarily affect the claim that there are verifiable supernatural miracles that continue to occur in the Post-Apostolic Age, nor the fact there are currently no Peer Reviewed Medically documented "miracles" that meet the definition of miracle set forth above. I want there to be one...there just isn't one and the question and topic of this thread is "Why aren't Miracles more documented?" I'd assert b/c they (possibly) aren't happening in the Post-Apostolic Age...at least not Strong Miracles.

      Delete
    3. Jason said, "God would know how much evidence is needed to persuade those He wants to persuade, as well as how much is needed to demonstrate the evil character of other individuals, among other purposes He would have in determining the level of evidence that's available."

      Well, if "God would know how much evidence is needed to persuade those He wants to persuade"...then God must not want to save any Skeptics and Empiricists b/c there aren't any Medically Verifiable "miracles" today. It seems that God used "miracles" in a "revelatory" manner in the OT and NT to validate His emissaries like Prophets, Jesus and the Apostles (even Steve assented to this point). Steve (and others) argue that God is still in the "revelatory miracle" business today...however, there are no clear-cut documented miracles to such...and it would seem that the purpose of a "revelatory miracle" is to save folks. Well, then cut loose some cut-and-dry miracles that the Medical Community can review and affirm and save some folks.

      Delete
    4. Jason said, ""One scholar skeptical of supernatural approaches readily grants that the healings occur. He affirms that 'some utterly extraordinary cures' have occurred there [at Lourdes], noting that enemies of the Catholic Church and leading medical scientists like Alexis Carrel have been persuaded by the data. He concedes that some cases cannot even be explained psychosomatically; among examples, he lists 'the instant healing of a terribly disfigured face, and the instantaneous healing of a club foot on a two and one half year old child,' shown by non-Catholics to be permanent. Further, he cites a news article about a three-year-old with terminal cancer and the bones being eaten away; after the healing, even 'the bones in her skull grew back. Her doctor, a Protestant, said that 'miracle' would not be too strong a word to use.'" (685)"

      What year did these "miracles" occur? Where is the medically verifiable forensic evidence to support such claims? Are there before and after x-rays? Before and after photos? Etc? Just eye-witness testimony?

      Delete
    5. Jason asked, "If you want us to believe that healing an amputee on video is the standard we should look for, you should explain why. "

      Explanation: It seems that a medically verifiable, forensically verifiable peer reviewed "miracle" would go a long way to answering Skeptics in a much stronger way. If the purpose of "revelatory miracles" is to validate prophets, Jesus, Apostles...and even "Missionaries" as Steve asserts...and if the "miracles" to date have not provided that validation to a rather large Group of people...it would seem that the "miracles" occurring today are really not that "revelatory" and pretty subjective.

      Delete
    6. Jason asked, "Tell us why other forms of evidence we have aren't enough, such as the non-video evidence we have for the paranormal growth of body parts, our evidence for resurrections, or the evidence we have for the cumulative weight of multiple miracles. Why are those insufficient, but a video of the healing of an amputee would be sufficient?"

      The video of the amputee regenerating a limb would not be sufficient unless it was witnessed by medical professionals and documented that the man or woman was missing a limb and then the limb regenerated (medical records, pictures, etc) and then the person's limb being examined and shown to be in fact a human limb that wasn't sewn on.

      The other "forms of evidence" are not enough due to the obvious lack of medical review and recognition of the occurrences as factual, verifiable and documented. Again, if the purpose of "revelatory miracles" is to reveal God's power to a Group of unbelievers and validate/verify His emissaries...then today's "miracles" have done a poor job of performing that function.

      I'm not sure why God doesn't use "Revelatory Miracles" today vs. raising Jesus from the dead and the types of supernatural miracles of the OT Prophets and then the Post-Resurrection Post-Pentecost Apostles....but we don't see those things in our day and age...and asserting that we do see those things...with the extremely laughable "evidence" we Christians proclaim...only makes us look foolish and disingenuous.

      Jason said, "I would argue that we already have better evidence than what you're asking for, even though it doesn't take the form you're requesting."

      Show me the money. Ssshhhhhooooowwwww me the mooonnnneeeey! (invokes best Jerry Maguire impersonation).

      I'd love to see one Strong Miracle that is medically verifiable and truly supernatural w/o explanation. Regenerating a limb would be awesome. I'm all for "Revelatory Miracles" so God can reveal His power. Heck, call down some fire from heaven like the OT prophets...or I'd even settle for you turning some water into wine or walking on water...you wouldn't even have to regenerate a limb.

      Delete
    7. Jason, do you know when the last "miracle" happened at Lourdes? 1952.

      Why did the "miracles" stop? It's been 60 years since the last one. No coincidence that the Medical Community is scrutinizing the claims more?

      Delete
    8. Alex said:

      "nor the fact there are currently no Peer Reviewed Medically documented 'miracles'...Well, then cut loose some cut-and-dry miracles that the Medical Community can review and affirm and save some folks."

      See my response to you above.

      Triablogue recently posted about how medical research works along with some of its limitations. You should check it out. See here.

      I can add more on the medical side of things if need be.

      "Just eye-witness testimony?"

      What's wrong with eyewitness testimony in attesting miracles?

      Also, the New Testament is chock full of miracles which are based in eyewitness testimony.

      "It seems that a medically verifiable, forensically verifiable peer reviewed 'miracle' would go a long way to answering Skeptics in a much stronger way."

      Steve and Jason have already explained this to you.

      This likewise brings to mind Luke 16:31.

      Delete
    9. On the one hand, Alex said:

      "The video of the amputee regenerating a limb would not be sufficient unless it was witnessed by medical professionals and documented that the man or woman was missing a limb and then the limb regenerated (medical records, pictures, etc) and then the person's limb being examined and shown to be in fact a human limb that wasn't sewn on."

      On the other hand, Alex said:

      "there are some hardcore unbelievers who would find an out if if a limb regenerated right in their presence."

      So, according to you, Alex, it's quite possible "hardcore" "unbeliev[ing]" physicians who witnessed a limb regenerating "right in their presence" nevertheless "would find an out".

      It sounds to me like you've already made up your mind about miracles in advance of any arguments anyone could offer.

      Delete
    10. rocking, no not really. I think you mistake some hyperbole for the conclusion you draw above. I think if there were a true medically verifiable supernatural "miracle" that many Doctors, Scientists and Skeptics would believe it...and that some hardcore Skeptics would still try to explain it away...as is human nature. It would be great to see a legit "miracle" that can be medically verifiable...just one. I don't know why there isn't, but I'm hoping we see one some day. I have faith God can do it, so it's not lack of faith...it's lack of a miracle.

      Delete
    11. rocking asked, "What's wrong with eyewitness testimony in attesting miracles?"

      LOL. It's pretty subjective and w/o hard forensic evidence it is hardly the standard for determining whether a true miracle occurred or not. Benny Hinn and Todd Bentley have all kinds of 'eye witness testimony' etc. All sorts of "verifiable" miracles. Do you believe they are healing all those folks?

      Delete
    12. Alex said:

      "I think if there were a true medically verifiable supernatural 'miracle' that many Doctors, Scientists and Skeptics would believe it...and that some hardcore Skeptics would still try to explain it away...as is human nature."

      So this still doesn't undermine let alone overturn my point. According to your own words, "hardcore skeptics" who happen to be physicians could still fail to believe they saw a miracle even if they were present at the miracle! LOL.

      Delete
    13. Alex said:

      "LOL. It's pretty subjective and w/o hard forensic evidence it is hardly the standard for determining whether a true miracle occurred or not.

      So I guess according to Alex, the Gospels are "pretty subjective" since they rely in on eyewitness testimony.

      "Benny Hinn and Todd Bentley have all kinds of 'eye witness testimony' etc. All sorts of 'verifiable' miracles. Do you believe they are healing all those folks?"

      You're tilting at windmills. I never said anything about Hinn or Bentley. Let alone that they can perform miracles or whatever. Seriously, you have an issue with basic reading comprehension as well as elementary logic that you should clearly get checked out. Check yourself before you wreck yourself, yo. Or rather before you continue wrecking yourself.

      Delete
    14. rocking said, "So I guess according to Alex, the Gospels are "pretty subjective" since they rely in on eyewitness testimony."

      Well, yes. Doesn't make them not truth, but we cannot ignore the facts about them: Textual scholar Bart Ehrman writes: "It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes - altogether many thousands of mistakes. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament...."

      We have copies of copies and, yes, we rely on hearsay testimony at worst and eyewitness testimony at best...but no empirically evidence (though archeology does provide some things...the Pontius Pilate Stone being one example).

      If the devil is the father of lies...it is important to embrace truth...wherever it leads us and not simply be intellectually dishonest when it doesn't fit in our Box.

      Today, we have no medically verifiable "miracles"...I wish we did, but we don't...and I'd love to see you produce one that would stand up to scientific review.

      Delete
    15. rocking said, "You're tilting at windmills. I never said anything about Hinn or Bentley. Let alone that they can perform miracles or whatever. Seriously, you have an issue with basic reading comprehension as well as elementary logic that you should clearly get checked out. Check yourself before you wreck yourself, yo. Or rather before you continue wrecking yourself."

      Ad hominem so soon? LOL. If you can't hang, just let me know. Ad hominem is usually a sure sign you're losing the argument.

      Delete
    16. Alex said:

      "Ad hominem so soon? LOL. If you can't hang, just let me know. Ad hominem is usually a sure sign you're losing the argument."

      1. How is it ad hominem to point out that you lack basic reading comprehension and elementary logic, and that you should evaluate and improve your condition? These are facts.

      2. Actually, not all ad hominem is fallacious. Try reading logician Peter Geach's work on the topic, for example.

      3. A better sign of "losing the argument" is that you can't answer perfectly reasonable questions posed to you. Since you haven't answered any of my questions so far, particularly the questions about medical research, I take it you're not competent to answer them.

      Delete
    17. Alex said:

      "Bart Ehrman writes: 'It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes - altogether many thousands of mistakes. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament....'"

      1. Triablogue has responded and in fact reviewed Ehrman's work on several occasions. So people should Google for this info if they're interested.

      2. I stand corrected because I thought I was at least debating some sort of a Christian, but if you subscribe to Ehrman's thinking, then you're evidently not.

      Delete
  9. Craig Keener, Jason and Steve have nearly exhausted all the reasons why more miracles aren't documented (in this and their many other blogs on this and related topics). The ones they mention are the most relevant reasons. But I think there are two other reasons which at first glance would seem contradictory but aren't ultimately.

    1. Lack of Faith
    2. The Sovereignty of God

    The first reason is that the very places where documenting miracles would be easier to do (First World countries) are the very places where the philosophy of secularism has had such an influence that people there aren't as open to the possiblity of the supernatural as people in other places (e.g. Third World countries). There's much doubt and little faith even among the Christians in the First World. They (or "We", me included) have relied too much on God's ordinary providence for healing and too little on God's special providence. For example first world Christians who get sick don't pursue divine healing as diligently as they could (or should). Often there's health insurance to lean on (sometimes as an idol). They don't really feel the need for (or have faith in) Jehovah Rapha/Rophe/Rophi ["I am Jehovah/Yaweh/YHWH your Physician" or "...who heals you"]. Teaching divine healing is much easier in other parts of the world and has greater results because in those places, either you trust God (for yourself and others), or you die. They don't have hospitals on every street corner like people in the first World virtually do. In this sense, our blessings have become our curses.

    I mention all this because one reason why there are fewer documentations of miracles is that THERE AREN'T THAT MANY to document in those places where documentation is much easier to do.

    Continued:

    ReplyDelete
  10. The second reason there aren't more documented cases of miracles is because by God's sovereignty:

    a.) God sometimes ordains that some Christians in some locations and times have less faith for miracles than other Christians at different (or same) locations at different times and ages. God is sometimes glorified in Christians as their lives are characterized by an experience of the Theology of the Cross. While in other Christians God is sometimes glorified as their lives are characterized by an experience of the Theology of Glory.

    b.) Also, in God's sovereignty, some people are non-elect and therefore aren't given more evidence (in the form of documentation OR direct personal witness of a miracle) for God's existence than they normally have in General Revelation. Otherwise it would rationally compel them to believe. This the same reason why Jesus spoke in parables (cf. Matt. 13:10-16; Mark 4:10-12; Luke 8:9-10; John 12:37-40).

    When it comes to non-Christian miracles, I'm convinced that most (not necessarily all) are demonic. If so, it makes sense that they are not interested in convincing First World countries to believe in the supernatural by documentation. Having said that, they will try to deceive small segments of people in First World countries to believe in non-Christian religions (e.g. the Occult, New Age etc.) by the use of counterfeit miracles. But if at all possible not documentable ones lest it shake the Secular Boat too much.

    As C.S. Lewis says, "There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight."

    BTW, I'm not against health insurance or medical care since Jesus Himself said, "...those who are well have no need of a physician". He therefore implied that doctors are a good thing. Moreover, even after Luke's conversion, Paul referred to him as "the beloved physician/doctor". Implying that Luke continued to be a doctor after his conversion.

    ReplyDelete
  11. ANNOYED PINOY said, "1. Lack of Faith"

    LOL. You list "Lack of Faith" as a reason for an unbeliever not to respond in faith to a "revelatory miracle".

    I thought the Calvins believed in monergism and that one can't muster up "faith" on their own. How could an unbeliever have a "lack of faith" as the reason for not getting their miracle if it is God who gives them their faith to be a believer to begin with? Isn't the "revelatory miracle" validate the emissary who is sharing the Faith so the person will believe?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe I didn't write clearly enough, because you misunderstand me. I was answering the question why there are few miracles documented. My point was that a lack of faith PRIMARILY IN CHRISTIANS in the First World is the reason why there are fewer miracles documented than there are. There's fewer not because it's more difficult to document in the First World (it's easier in the First World); but because there are fewer miracles actually happening to document AT ALL among Christians in the First World (because of a lack of faith).

      You said...
      LOL. You list "Lack of Faith" as a reason for an unbeliever not to respond in faith to a "revelatory miracle".

      I don't understand what you're saying. I'm guessing you mean to say that I (AP) listed "Lack of Faith" as a reason AS TO WHY unbelievers don't respond in faith to a "revelatory miracle". No, I didn't say or mean that.

      With regard to unbelievers becoming believers through witnessing or experiencing miracles, I do think that that sometimes happens. God sometimes uses miracles to convince non-Christians to become Christian. I've said elsewhere (see my comments here) "I'm among those who believe that the use of signs and wonders for *evangelism* is seriously under appreciated in the church. However, I'm not so sure whether they are useful for (or authorized by God for) apologetics in light of passages like Matt. 12:29; 16:4 where Jesus says "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah."

      My views are more fully explained at that link: here.

      I also said there...

      By the way, God can also heal in the absence of strong faith. Walter Martin once testified how a lady in a church meeting asked him to pray for her and he had near zero faith for it. Yet, the lady was miraculously healed to his own amazement. Soon afterward (in a matter of days), some parents asked him to pray for their son and he felt he had an enormous amount of faith to get the child well. But he prayed and nothing happened.

      Because God is sovereign, God can and does do the miraculous apart from strong faith. However, generally speaking, God answers prayer according to one's degree of faith. See Matt. 9:29; Matt. 8:13.

      Delete
    2. You said...
      I thought the Calvins [sic] believed in monergism and that one can't muster up "faith" on their own.

      Yes, faith is ultimately the gift of God. That's why I originally wrote that the two answers I gave would APPEAR/SEEM to be contradictory, but aren't ultimately.

      God can and does make commands and has requirements/expectations which both non-Christians and Christians cannot fulfill apart from God's grace. That's a big focus of Luther's The Bondage of the Will. It's also why Pelagius criticized Augustine for his prayer "Give what thou commandest and command what thou wilt."

      By ourselves we cannot obey God's commandments or believe God's promises. It requires God's grace to enable us to do so (even if we do so weakly). However, Calvinists don't teach that we're supposed to wait idly until we see evidence of God's grace working in our lives to obey or believe. We're called to ask for God's grace and so believe and obey. The fact that we can't believe or obey God ought to drive us to the place where we ask God to be enabled to do so. If we sincerely do so, God will grant it. Of course, if we sincerely did so, then God's grace was already working in our hearts. Even Arminians who believe in prevenient grace reject Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism.

      For example, A.W. Tozer, who repeatedly said he wasn't a Calvinist, wrote in his classic book The Pursuit of God:
      "Christian theology teaches the doctrine of prevenient grace, which briefly stated means this, that before a man can seek God, God must first have sought the man."

      and

      "We pursue God because, and only because, He has first put an urge within us that spurs us to the pursuit. "No man can come to me," said our Lord, "except the Father which hath sent me draw him," and it is by this very prevenient drawing that God takes from us every vestige of credit for the act of coming. The impulse to pursue God originates with God, but the out working of that impulse is our following hard after Him; and all the time we are pursuing Him we are already in His hand: "Thy right hand upholdeth me."

      Without God's grace, we cannot muster up faith. But with God's grace, we can cooperate with it. Regeneration and justification are "monergistic", but santification can be said to be "synergistic". Though, some Calvinists [e.g. James White] don't like to use the word with respect to sanctification because it can be misleading.

      A Christian by his/her own strength cannot strengthen her faith. But by God's grace, and by relying on God's grace, she can do those things which foster and strength faith. For example, reading the Bible, praying, fellowshipping with other Christians, partaking in communion (which are various means of grace).

      Similarly, non-Christians cannot believe in God by their own ability. But God still requires non-Christians to believe in him (just has He requires them to obey His commands, despite them being Totally Depraved). They don't have the moral or spiritual ability to believe, even though they have the natural ability. Non-Christians should ask God for grace to help them believe. They should claim Jesus' promise that "He who comes to me I will by no means cast out". They should ask God to help them to sincerely comes to Jesus and believe.

      Delete
  12. Alex,

    You keep changing your standards and contradicting yourself.

    You initially suggested that a video would be enough evidence, and you commented that skeptics are sometimes unreasonable to the point that they would deny a miracle even if they witnessed it themselves. The implication seemed to be that we wouldn't have to convince every skeptic, since some skeptics aren't reasonable. But then you suggested that a miracle must be verified in a medical journal or in some other such way, not just caught on video, must convince skeptics who aren't yet convinced, etc.

    On the one hand, you keep pointing back to the Biblical miracles as examples of what we should expect. On the other hand, you keep telling us that things like video and X-rays are needed for verification, things that didn't occur with the Biblical miracles. And if modern miracles must convince the "Skeptics and Empiricists" you refer to, then why don't Biblical miracles have to meet the same standard?

    You tell us that you want medical documentation, but you ignore most of the examples involving such documentation that I've already provided. In another context (Lourdes) you change your standards again by objecting that the miracles aren't recent enough. Yet, you keep approvingly citing Biblical miracles that are even less recent. And you're wrong about Lourdes, since those miracles and the documentation of them didn't stop in 1952 (Keener, nn. 197 and 199 on 681, 681-683). Even if they had stopped then, so what? Do miracles need to keep happening in Israel in order for you to believe that they occurred there at the time of Jesus?

    You still haven't explained why we supposedly need the various and shifting types of evidence you've been asking for. Telling us that "Skeptics and Empiricists" haven't yet acknowledged a miracle doesn't prove that there isn't enough evidence. By your own admission, some skeptics are unreasonable, so why should we consider them the standard of reasonableness? I've given examples of skeptics being converted by modern miracles, in these posts about Keener's book and elsewhere. Why aren't those examples sufficient? You said that there isn't evidence to convince "any" skeptic, so one example would be enough to refute your claim. I've provided more than one example. I suspect you'll change your standard again. In one of your most recent posts, you claim that modern miracles convince "only non-educated unbelievers or uneducated gullible Benny Hinn show goers". I've already refuted that claim, and you've made no effort to interact with the evidence I've cited.

    Not only do you keep failing to sufficiently support your own claims, but you also keep ignoring evidence against your claims that you've already been given. Your professed interest in evidence is betrayed by your ignorance, your carelessness that allows you to contradict yourself so obviously and so often, the poor quality of your reasoning, and your dishonesty. Stop wasting everybody's time. Either improve the quality of your posts or stop posting.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Alex, of course. The uniformity of Nature suggests that the miracles of the Tanakh and the Christian Testament revel of superstition also: no follow-ups and no investigations period! Eye-witnesses to miracles are eye-witnesses to magic acts!
    Those putative miracles of Lourdes are all natural matters!The Vatican's experts are ready to support miracles as they are faith-based,not reality-based people when they declare miracles, so that they haven't supported any since 1952 is that medicine has so advanced to leave them no out to use the argument from ignorance!
    The Vatican's support of other miracles leads to canonization due to the argument from ignorance! Mother Dearest Teresa did not cure that Bangladeshi girl of anything as her father so states!Study James Randi's and Dr. William Nolan's books about faith.
    healing.
    Either come up with tested, proven claims,Jason, instead of those mere assertions by people who don't know how to investigate matters, or admit defeat! Your faith-based attitude betrays sweet reason!
    Whine all you will,that cannot instantiate any miracle whatsoever!Those putative skeptics don't know how to do a decent investigation! They are natural cause-denialists!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Inquiring Lynn said:

      "The uniformity of Nature suggests that the miracles of the Tanakh and the Christian Testament revel of superstition"

      1. This is far too vague to be valuable. You'll have to spell out what the uniformity of nature has to do with your claim that the Bible is superstitious.

      2. Why do you assume the uniformity of nature?

      "also: no follow-ups and no investigations period!"

      Wrong. Check out a book like Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham.

      "Eye-witnesses to miracles are eye-witnesses to magic acts!"

      That's your unfounded assumption. Where's the argument?

      "Study James Randi's and Dr. William Nolan's books about faith."

      As far as I'm aware, Randi doesn't have any sort of relevant academic background (e.g. biblical studies, philosophy, science). As far as I'm aware, Randi is a former magician who goes around showing how other tricksters and showmen con people using his background as a magician.

      I could only find a William Nolan who is a scifi writer. Is this the William Nolan you're referring to?

      "Either come up with tested, proven claims,Jason, instead of those mere assertions by people who don't know how to investigate matters, or admit defeat!"

      Actually, what you said is a string of assertions. You should take your own advice.

      Jason, on the other hand, has a long and tremendously sound track record on this very blog on a variety of apologetics related topics. But you evidently haven't bothered to read his stuff. Otherwise you'd know what you say is plainly mistaken.

      "Your faith-based attitude betrays sweet reason!"

      False dichotomy.

      "Whine all you will,that cannot instantiate any miracle whatsoever!Those putative skeptics don't know how to do a decent investigation! They are natural cause-denialists!"

      You're just ranting. But there's no substance.

      I don't suppose Inquiring Lynn is relying on the National Enquirer for info?

      Delete
    2. Lynn,

      To invoke the "uniformity of nature" begs the question. What we know of nature is based on observation. And that includes reported miracles.

      Delete
    3. Steve said, "What we know of nature is based on observation. And that includes reported miracles."

      Today, our "observation" is not mere non-medical-expert observation. We "observe" through the lens of Science and Medicine with ability to "see" things at level that a lay person witnessing a natural phenomena can't discern.

      We don't accept as "observation" someone reporting a UFO or alien sighting...as those are also observations of nature.

      Delete
    4. So, Alex, how would modern science distinguish between normal wine and wine that had been turned into wine from water?

      Delete
    5. Inquiring Lynn wrote:

      "Those putative miracles of Lourdes are all natural matters!The Vatican's experts are ready to support miracles as they are faith-based,not reality-based people when they declare miracles, so that they haven't supported any since 1952 is that medicine has so advanced to leave them no out to use the argument from ignorance!"

      You're ignoring what I wrote about evidence for the Lourdes miracles earlier in this thread and in my previous threads, like here. You're also ignoring what I said about miracles since 1952.

      Besides, as Keener documents, the Vatican has required Lourdes miracles to meet an unusually high standard. The fact that a miracle account doesn't meet that standard doesn't prove that there isn't sufficient reason for us to accept the account. If the Vatican chooses to apply an overly demanding standard in a context like Lourdes, others can apply a less demanding one and be justified in accepting more of the miracle accounts. As Keener puts it:

      "Besides the fairly secure cures, the [Lourdes medical] bureau knows of four thousand other probable cures. Many others were cured and never submitted any information to the bureau. Forty doctors confirmed the cure of a medically incurable, quadriplegic postencephalitic idiot – a child who went from complete insensibility and lack of control to intelligent normalcy – but because some documents were missing, the cure was never officially proclaimed….Garner, 'Regressions,' 1257, notes 'nearly 1500 well documented cures, with case-notes, X-ray films and photographs,' with another three thousand to four thousand lacking adequate data but presumably including many cures….Rigorous standards can reflect integrity, but to rule out any evidence that does not meet these standards risks giving too much ground to an antisupernaturalist worldview whose advocates generally assume rather than argue their case (see chs. 5-6). While allowing for a fairly certain critical minimum, such standards should not be used negatively, to argue that miracle claims not meeting these criteria are inauthentic." (680, n. 192 on 680, 686)

      Delete
  14. Alex

    "Today, our "observation" is not mere non-medical-expert observation. We 'observe' through the lens of Science and Medicine with ability to 'see' things at level that a lay person witnessing a natural phenomena can't discern."

    Science and medicine are descriptive, not proscriptive.

    Likewise, one doesn't need to be scientifically trained to perceive a miraculous event, anymore than one needs such training to perceive a non-miraculous event. You keep illustrating your dissimulation as you feign interest in the evidence for miracles while you artificially screen out evidence for miracles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve said, 'Likewise, one doesn't need to be scientifically trained to perceive a miraculous event, anymore than one needs such training to perceive a non-miraculous event. You keep illustrating your dissimulation as you feign interest in the evidence for miracles while you artificially screen out evidence for miracles."

      Agreed that one doesn't need to be scientifically trained to perceive a miraculous event, however one probably needs to be scientifically trained to verify and validate that the event was in fact a violation of natural physical law rendering it a supernatural miracle. I'm not "feigning" interest, that's a heart judgment and you are not God and not qualified to render that such a judgment. I would sincerely like to see a "miracle" today that measures up to a medically verifiable standard.

      Delete
    2. Alex

      "I would sincerely like to see a 'miracle' today that measures up to a medically verifiable standard."

      You're not here to be talked into believing in miracles; rather, you're here to talk Christians out of believing in miracles. That's been your posture from start to finish.

      Delete
    3. Alex said:

      "Agreed that one doesn't need to be scientifically trained to perceive a miraculous event, however one probably needs to be scientifically trained to verify and validate that the event was in fact a violation of natural physical law rendering it a supernatural miracle."

      Since you're not scientifically trained, or at least I've already detected your lack of knowledge about how basic research works, then does this mean you can't "verify and validate that the event was in fact a violation of natural physical law rendering it a supernatural miracle"? If so, then even if you received proof positive of a miracle, you've confessed you wouldn't be able to know.

      Delete
  15. Alex

    "Agreed that one doesn't need to be scientifically trained to perceive a miraculous event, however one probably needs to be scientifically trained to verify and validate that the event was in fact a violation of natural physical law rendering it a supernatural miracle."

    That's a Humean, ersatz definition of a miracle.

    "I'm not 'feigning' interest, that's a heart judgment and you are not God and not qualified to render that such a judgment."

    You've been raising village atheist objection to miracles throughout this thread. Try the innocent routine on someone else. It doesn't fly with me.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Alex,

    You're still not making much of an effort to support your claims or interact with the counterarguments. Your posts have been highly irresponsible for a few days now, and you show no indication of making a significant effort to improve. You're no longer allowed to post here, in this thread or anywhere else on the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Alex saw my post above about his being banned. He replied to it by telling me that I overreacted. And he put up several more posts, all after I had told him not to post. That tells you something about his ethical standards. He knowingly violates the rules of the forum, and he does so to make more comments along the lines of his previous ones (doing little or nothing to justify his own claims and interact with counterarguments). If Alex continues to post, and somebody wants to respond to him, do so with a new post within the thread. Don't hit the reply button on Alex's post. Otherwise, your reply will get deleted along with his post.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Projecting on me that twaddle means nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We offer you reasonable responses. You could respond to our responses even though you disagree. You could attempt to offer logic, argumentation, reason, etc. You know, all that stuff that atheists and secularists typically laud? Instead you reply with this. Good news for us since it means you don't have anything substantial to contribute. Bad news for you since it means you don't have anything substantial to contribute.

      Delete
  19. I know this is an old thread, but I thought I ought to add something.

    John Frame, in an online debate related to miracles with an unbeliever, said something to the extent that miracles are not for the non-elect, but for the elect. I think that he was right on.

    Let's be clear. God doesn't owe us anything. Nothing. Jesus didn't have to come to die for anyone, because God would have been perfectly just in condemning His sworn enemies. He has already given us more than enough evidence (Romans 1:18-32). The unbeliever knows there is a God, and that he is accountable to God. He may not want to admit it, and he may have self-deceived himself into thinking there is no God. But deep in his heart he at least knew once.

    God is not a clown making tricks for you Alex & Lynn. In fact, the Bible makes it clear that if you are not part of the elect, you will never surrender to Him. Not because of lack of evidence, but because you don't want to.

    The whole idea that you can request a miracle on your terms from God, and that He must abide if He exists, is preposterous. Why would He?

    God will give enough evidence for a revelatory miracle to those whom He mercifully cares to save. And to those whom He justly passes over, He may not. He is not failing in His purposes as you seem to imply.

    ReplyDelete