Miracles can be a difficult topic for Christians. For those of us who hold to the truthfulness of the Bible’s claims also hold to the validity of its miracles. But turning water into wine, the virgin birth, and the resurrection of Christ simply run against modern sensibilities.
For example, consider the outlandish headlines you commonly see in the magazine racks in stores: ILLINOIS MAN GIVES BIRTH TO TWINS. A skeptic will ask, “Do you believe this?” And any reasonable person would say, “No. Men cannot give birth.” And then the skeptic replies, “That’s right. And neither do virgins.” The reasonable assumption, then, is that if you can’t believe the unlikely headlines in the tabloids, then you should not believe the Bible either.
Redefining Probability
Though few know to give him credit, David Hume, with his treatise On Human Nature and Understanding (1739), produced the leading source for modern bias against miracles. His explanation on why we can’t believe in something like the resurrection goes like this:
(a) All observed dead people have stayed dead.
(b) Most, but not all, people tell the truth.
These two propositions give a certain probability for the following two:
(a’) Jesus stayed dead.
(b’) The disciples spoke truly.
Statement (a) confers an extremely high probability on (a’), whereas (b) confers a slightly lower probability on (b’). Hence (a’) is more probable and should be believed.
This explanation resonated—and still does—with many as reasonable, influencing how much of the West thinks about the natural world.
How do Christians challenge this explanation? Roger White offers a response in his 1997 article, “Miracles and Rational Belief,” from Kategoria, a journal that was published by the Matthias Center for the Study of Modern Beliefs. Kategoria, which critiqued secularism and showed readers Christianity holds the answers that so many are searching for, is now archived in full by The Gospel Coalition.
White argues that Hume and those who follow him have “created” an occurrence where miracles like the resurrection are unlikely to happen. However, White explains, there is a different occurrence where miracles can be probable:
The belief that the world was created and is continually controlled by an almighty being not only makes the occurrence of a miracle more probable, it provides one with an entirely different framework in which to consider the case. For when we are dealing with the actions of a personal agent, and not merely the blind forces of nature, such features as the purpose and significance of the event become relevant. If I were to hear that a friend has quit university and has been living in a tree for some weeks, I might find the story too hard to believe. The problem is not that she could not do this, it just seems unlikely given her behavior in the past. But when I hear that she is protesting the logging of rain forests, the story makes more sense and is far more plausible. The analogy is loose, but in a similar way God has no difficulty in bringing about any event at all, but an understanding of the purpose that God might have in bringing about a miracle, can make such an event far more believable.
In other words, Hume has approached the question of miracles with the assumption that miracles don’t occur. C. S. Lewis, in Miracles, said something quite similar:
There is no use going to the texts until we have some idea about the possibility or probability of the miraculous. Those who assume that miracles cannot happen are merely wasting time by looking into the texts: we know in advance what results they will find for they have begun by begging the question.
This is the everyday challenge for us as we talk with our unbelieving co-workers, family members, or neighbors. And it is becoming the weekly challenge for preachers and teachers laboring to show the validity of a biblical worldview as they bring God’s Word and the gospel to bear upon their listeners.
Wisdom Needed
Tim Keller’s sermons on the miracles of Jesus offer an excellent example of how to preach on the Gospels for skeptical audiences. Keller regularly challenges the assumptions of skeptics as he considers the miracles. On miracles, he writes in The Reason for God:
It is one thing to say that science is only equipped to test for natural causes and cannot speak to any others. It is quite another to insist that science proves that no other causes could possibly exist. . . . There would be no experimental model for testing the statement: ‘No supernatural cause for any natural phenomenon is possible.’ It is therefore a philosophical presupposition and not a scientific finding.
May the Lord give us wisdom and grace as we give an account for the hope we have.
Is there enough evidence for us to believe the Gospels?
In an age of faith deconstruction and skepticism about the Bible’s authority, it’s common to hear claims that the Gospels are unreliable propaganda. And if the Gospels are shown to be historically unreliable, the whole foundation of Christianity begins to crumble.
