Here are my notes on the last part of a very warm and friendly debate between Michael Shermer and Adrian Holloway about healing miracles. Michael is a sceptic and Adrian is a church leader.
So, if Michael saw a limb grow would it really be evidence of a supernatural God? Michael says "that is an interesting point and that we are on the cusp of doing this ourselves. If it happened he would like to know how God did it so we could understand it for ourselves and do it." I think he is saying that in a way it would not be a miracle as we would be able to see how it happened. This is an interesting point. If you zoomed in on a miracle at what point, if any, would you see something supernatural? Would it all look normal until you got to a statistical quantum level? If so that would mean you could never identify a miracle under the microscope as you would never see anything impossible. At all times the laws of physics would be operating normally. A new limb would grow, not by molecules appearing out of a supernatural ether but by cell division. It would still be truth that God would be sovereignly behind the events, as he is behind all events in history, working things out according to his will and plan. In such a view a miracle is really in the eye of the beholders. It's essence is in the effect of its happening on the observers. Another view is a "miracles of the gaps" theory that expect miracles to be in direct contradiction to the laws of nature. Under a microscope the cells of a leg would suddenly appear "ex nihilo", out of nothing.
What would it take for Michael to believe in God? He quotes Woody Allen's reply to the same question "a large cache deposit in a Swiss bank account in his name!". "About 10 million dollars would do it!"
Adrian points out that it is harder to get to atheism as you have to rule out, beyond your experience, the possibility of God existing. Agnosticism would be more attractive. Michael says technically he is an agnostic but behaviourally he is an atheist as he acts on the assumption that there is no God. "What you do is more important than what you believe. An all powerful God would care more about what you did that what you believe. Love people etc". Adrian agrees that people will be judged on the basis of their actions so Michael quips there may be hope for him yet. I guess he doesn't realise that it's not a case of weighing good against bad, but being judged for every bad thing you have done. We have all done things wrong and so all need to be forgiven. When you go into a court room to be tried for murder would you expect to be let off because you saved someone's life a few years earlier?
Michael asked Adrian about Jews: "They believe in everything Christians believe except Jesus so what happens about them?" Adrian has asked three Jewish people, including one very senior medical academic, if they have read the NT but none had. So he has not had much first hand experience of talking things through with Jews who have seen the evidence. He says he is very happy to talk about Jewish evangelism it's just he is not that strong on it. Isn't it getting away from the topic of miracles? Michael says it is connected as the Jews obviously look at the same evidence but reject it and say Jesus didn't rise from the dead. Adrian says all he can do is look at it from his perspective as he isn't Jewish. He has a history degree and when he looks at the evidence, treating the sources the same as other historical literature, he concludes that it looks like Jesus did rise. Of course you have to go along with the possibility of miracles or it may be that no amount of evidence will be enough to persuade you.
Michael thinks that C S Lewis (whose fiction and non-fiction he likes) missed out an option in his Lord, liar, or lunatic trilemma ie that people were simply mistaken in what they saw or remembered. He also says that people like David Koresh go to their deaths for believing they have heard God but didn't.
Adrian says that the NT records are too early to have been Chinese whispers. Also think how the game works. If I whisper to one person "Jesus is really super and great" and they whisper to the next person and so on round the room and we get out at the end "Jesus is God" then I will laugh and say "no, that's not what I said". That's how the game works. Everyone gets to see the mistake because the first person, the source, is still in the room. Even though some of the NT could have been written 30-50 years after the crucifixion, the eye witnesses are still in the room! They are still alive and could have said "No, you've got it all wrong, Jesus was just a good man"! He points to 1 Cor 15:1-8 as a record of a very early statement perhaps even within 24 months of the events.
Adrian mentions a lady who had significant hearing loss and now after prayer in the name of Jesus has normal hearing. She even has the before and after test results. She gave back her two hearing aids. Abbey Coles had several allergies (fruit and rubber latex) and was entirely healed. Previously she had to stay with her mum and within 20 minutes of a hospital. She was healed, was able to move away and live independently, and can now live a normal life. A woman was in a wheel chair for 8 years with encephalitis and all the doctors could do was control the pain. She had a stair lift in her house. She was instantly healed when prayed for in the name of Jesus and a picture of her lifting her wheel chair appeared in the Daily Mail shortly afterwards. Her doctor said this had never happened to him before. She had trouble giving back her benefits because people don't get well of these things. Adrian concludes "it's worth praying for people because of the results even though some are not healed the more I pray for people the more people are healed."
Michael points to the fact that most people who are ill get prayed for but still die. We only hear about the ones that get well - the anomalies. He talks about his girlfriend who was paralysed in a car accident. He was a Christian then and prayed and prayed and prayed but nothing happened. She is still paraplegic. I wonder how much that affected his thinking rather than the location reason he gave at the start. If so I can understand where he is coming from a lot more. Michael asks why healing is the exception, why does God withhold healing to most people? I think that's a very good question!
Adrian says it is a good objection and why for most of his Christian life he didn't pray for the sick. Wouldn't it be better not to raise expectations, play safe and not raise hopes? But that doesn't help those who actually are healed and that is an increasing number in his experience. He now thinks it's worth it for the few (sometimes as much as 50%) that do get healed. I am very struck by the pragmatic way Adrian reasons. It's very helpful in conducting the conversation in a realm where the other person can engage and dialogue. There is some merit in saying "because the bible says so" but it can be a bit of a conversation stopper.
For Michael though, people would probably still have got better even without prayer. That is why you need controlled experiments he says. It's no different from approving a drug. You need clinical trials, it's standard procedure. Why is the prayer things different?
And so the debate comes to an end. As the moderator is wrapping it up Michael interjects and says that "this was a very thoughtful conversation and Adrian you seem like such a reasonable guy". Adrian reciprocates, and I agree. It really was a pleasure to listen to and probably shed more light on the matter for there being less heat. I wonder how often Michael finds himself interacting with people who are slightly more hostile and aggressive to him and his position. I have learned a lot from listening to the gracious way Adrian spoke in this debate and also, as Michael opened up about his experiences as a Christian, saw something of the genuine challenges that people have to believing in a God who heals.
No comments:
Post a Comment