Sunday, February 16, 2020

Counterfeit miracles

1. Fred Butler doesn't stop to consider that the Burmese missionaries he happens to know or interact with may not necessarily be representative of Burmese missionaries in general.

2. What if there are missionaries who have in fact witnessed miracles but Butler doesn't know or interact with them? After all, how likely is someone who is a dyed-in-the-wool cessationist as Butler is likely to interact with missionaries who aren't like-minded cessationists?

3. Or is Butler suggesting it would come down to a "my missionary friends" vs. "your missionary friends" debate over the possibility of miracles? Yet wouldn't Butler simply dismiss counter-testimony open to miracles if it's strictly an issue of testimonial evidence?

4. Indeed, based on what I've seen from Butler, he readily accepts testimonial evidence from missionaries who "never see" miracles occur (as he does here), but he dismisses testimonial evidence to the contrary. If so, I would presume that's because Butler believes the default position is the negative position. That the negative position is the default position unless the positive position can be justified. In our case, the negative position is the claim that no miracles occur today.

However, that would lead to an extreme skepticism if the position is consistently applied. For example, how do we know we have physical bodies? If the default position is the negative position, then we are not justified to believe we have physical bodies unless it can be proven that we do have physical bodies. But one can always argue that it's possible we are brains-in-a-vat and hence without physical bodies. That perhaps what we experience is entirely computer generated but we can't tell the difference from what's computer generated and reality itself. Sure, it's absurd to believe we are brains-in-a-vat, but can the possibility be completely ruled out? If not, and if the negative position is the default position, then we are not justified to believe we have physical bodies.

If the presumption that the default position is the negative position is only applicable to miracles, then (as it stands) that would seem to be special pleading.

5. Why does testimonial evidence about miracles have to be solely from Christian missionaries? Why can't testimonial evidence about miracles be from non-Christians? Even heretics?

After all, the Bible itself includes accounts of pagans and heretics working miracles. For example, Jannes and Jambres. Likewise Balaam. And Acts 8 records that many people paid attention to Simon Magus "because for a long time he had amazed them with his magic" (Acts 8:11). Presumably Simon Magus wasn't merely doing cheap parlor tricks.

Now, I don't think Francis Chan is a heretic. However, let's suppose he is. If so, why couldn't a heretic work genuine healing miracles?

6. There's also a unique danger to the cessationist Christian. If, for instance, a cessationist Christian came across a bona fide miracle, say a healing miracle, but the miracle was worked by a pagan (e.g. an African witch doctor), then it could potentially challenge the cessationist Christian's faith in a way that it wouldn't challenge the faith of the Christian who believes pagans could work healing miracles.

However, if the cessationist Christian accepts that the dark side can work miracles through people (e.g. healing miracles, making accurate prophecies), but believes God doesn't work miracles through people today, then why not? God allows the dark side to work miracles, but God binds himself or his people from performing miracles?

7. Not to mention, on certain interpretations of Revelation, or on certain eschatological beliefs, the beast and the false prophet can work miracles. The beast is resurrected. The false prophet calls down fire from heaven like Elijah did with the prophets of Baal. The false prophet can breathe breath into an image to make it come alive. And so on. The false prophet does all this in order to "deceive those who dwell on earth". See Rev 13.

I don't know Butler's eschatological beliefs, or more to the point how he would interpret Revelation, but if he believes the beast and the false prophet can work genuine miracles, why exclude the possibility that non-Christians such as heretics can work miracles too? Is miracle-working only possible in a future eschatological period? Why think people could work miracles only before the biblical canon was completed and after we reach a future eschatological period but not in-between?

Or would these so-called miracles in Revelation only have the appearance of the miraculous, but in truth they're non-miraculous scientific or technological marvels that the beast and false prophet made to appear to be miracles? (By the way, is cessationist miracle detection akin to atheistic design detection of the Dawkins variety? There's always a naturally explicable reason for the appearance of the miraculous.)

8. As an aside, in general, I prefer to use the name Burma rather than Myanmar.

Burma is the name for the nation under British rule as well as after its independence when the nation was a democracy. However Myanmar is the name the militarily-controlled and dictatorial socialist government has designated for the nation.

To my knowledge, the UK doesn't recognize Myanmar as the official name of the nation. Neither does the US, though the US sometimes straddles the fence by using both Burma and Myanmar at the same time, viz. "Burma (Myanmar)" or "Myanmar (Burma)". Most nations in the United Nations do recognize Myanmar as the official name, but I wouldn't recognize the UN's recognition, let alone its authority on this (and many other matters)!

To be fair, a colonial name based on the majority ethnic group (i.e. Burmans) isn't necessarily ideal either. However, I'd accept Myanmar if the people were able to have a free and fair vote and elected to change the name to Myanmar (or maybe more likely Myanmaa which is somewhat closer to the true pronunciation).

2 comments:

  1. Concerning the names of ex-colonial nations when the new government announces a new name... I don't think that speakers of foreign languages are obliged to follow local preferences; on the contrary, it's quite normal to use different names in different languages and places. "London" can be pronounced quite easily by a French speaker, but they prefer to call it "Londres". And their own capital is pronounced by them as "Par-ee", but we insist on calling it a different name based on reading the French spelling with English pronounciation, "Par-is", which makes no real sense if you think about it. China is not called "China" in Chinese - so why did Peking have to begin being called Beijing? So, when I see people starting to be very opinionated about not using the so-called "colonial" name, I usually think they're likely to not have thought very deeply about it.

    Butler's tweet is, as eloquently pointed out, basically a fallacious appeal to authority. He has omitted to explain why being a contact of Fred Butler is the gold standard of reliability for eye-witness testimony. Perhaps it is - who knows? But I say at least, that he has merely assumed that it's self-evidently so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, David! Very well put. I entirely agree with you.

      Delete