#DR EARMAN MEME FULL#

For example, all of our observations and other evidence for the law of gravity is evidence against Superman flying through the air. The basic idea of the Nomological Evidence Argument is not that the natural laws themselves are evidence against miracles rather, the evidence for the laws of nature is evidence against the occurrence of miracles. I call this argument the Nomological Evidence Argument its name is derived from the Greek word nomos, which means “law.” The argument is not called the “Nomological Argument,” however, since the focus of the argument is not the laws per se, but the evidence for the laws.įollowing Geisler and Turek, let’s define a “natural law” as a description of “what happens regularly, by natural causes” and a “miracle” as a description of “what happens rarely, by supernatural causes” (201). Instead, I want to present my own argument for the prior improbability of miracles. (a) The Nomological Evidence Argument (against Miracles): Since I have no interest in defending Hume, I shall ignore Geisler’s critique. Following Geisler’s reconstruction of Hume’s argument, Geisler summarizes his critique, originally delivered at Harvard University’s divinity school: (i) Hume confuses believability with possibility (ii) Hume confuses probability with evidence and (iii) Hume, without justification, makes it impossible to have sufficient evidence for rare events (205-08). Geisler and Turek know this and so they consider one objection against the credibility of miracles: Dave Hume’s famous argument against miracles. (2) Hume’s Argument Against the Credibility of Miracle Claims: Even if miracles are possible, it doesn’t follow that they are probable. In light of what can only be described as Geisler’s instrumental role in getting Licona fired (twice!) for following the historical evidence wherever Licona thought it leads, skeptics can hardly be blamed for questioning Geisler’s open-mindedness when it comes to evaluating the historical evidence about alleged Biblical miracles. Not only did he lose his job as research professor of New Testament at Southern Evangelical Seminary, but he was also ousted as apologetics coordinator for the North American Missions Board (NAMB). As a direct result, Licona lost two jobs.

#DR EARMAN MEME FULL#

As reported by Christianity Today, other evangelical scholars, most notably Norman Geisler, publicly accused Licona of denying the full inerrancy of the Bible. While some Evangelical scholars, such as Paul Copan and Craig Blomberg, rallied to Licona’s defense, others were highly critical.

To his credit, Licona did not allow the potential implications of his commitment to Biblical inerrancy to get in the way. While Licona defends the resurrection of Jesus, he proposes that the story of the resurrection of the saints described in Matthew 27 just might be metaphorical rather than literal history. Licona is the author of the 700-page book, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach.

One Evangelical Christian scholar who looked honestly at the historical evidence about Biblical miracles is Michael Licona. The lesson to be learned here is that we should try to avoid a priori commitments per se and instead look honestly at the evidence. But both sides are wrong: miracles and legends are possible. Price asks, “If miracles are possible, are legends impossible?” If some skeptics are guilty of an a priori commitment to metaphysical naturalism (and so rule out even the possibility of miracles), some Christians are guilty of an a priori commitment to Biblical inerrancy (and so rule out the even possibility of errors in the Biblical miracle stories). Furthermore, Spinoza’s pantheistic objection to the possibility of miracles fails. (1) The Possibility of Miracles and Legends: As Geisler and Turek rightly argue, if God exists, then miracles are possible. Miracles: Signs of God or Gullibility?Īs I read them, Geisler and Turek (G&T) seek to establish four points: (1) If God exists, then miracles are possible (2) Hume’s argument against the credibility of miracle claims is a failure (3) miracles can be used to confirm a message from God (i.e., as acts of God to confirm a word from God) and (4) we don’t observe Biblical-quality miracles today because such miracles are not needed to confirm a new revelation from God.

Dr earman meme