We begin this course with reading Chapter 6 of The Reason for God followed by viewing several video clips of Tim Keller addressing some of the issues raised in his book. In this chapter Keller takes on the assertion that evolutionary science has rendered belief in God obsolete. Keller attributes this assumtption on the recognition that most of the major faiths believe in miracles - and the scientific community does not. The problem behind this "thinking" is its presupposition. He writes: “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.” Consequently, for science to claim that there can be no supernatural cause for any natural phenomenon is only a philosophical presuppostion and not a scientific fact that can be proved or demonstrated. The other hidden premise underlying the belief that miracles are irrational is the assumption that there can’t be a God who performs miracles. Keller comments, “If there is a Creator God, there is nothing illogical at all about the possibility of miracles.”
After having completed the readings for this session and reviewed the accompanying video you may choose - on a purely optional basis - to answer the study questions and submit them at etwimber@hotmail.com or to contact Dr. Wimberley by phone or email to request a time for dialogue about what you have learned. You may do so by phone or dialogue via Skype or Facetime. Dr. Wimberley's phone number is 239.405.4164. We may convene group meetings of the class using the Zoom application on our computers. You can enroll in this course by emailing etwimber@hotmail.com or by texting Dr. Wimberley at 239.405.4164.
1 When he came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him; 2 and behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.” 3 And he stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted.
-
How often have you heard this objection? How often have you heard it stated as a source of doubt by Christians? What specific issues did they have in mind?
-
Dawkins points to a survey that shows only 7% of scientists believe in God. “This is proof,” Dawkins believes, “that the more intelligent, rational, and scientifically minded you are, the less you will be able to believe in God” [p. 84]. Does this not seem to be an elitist argument? What elitist arguments do Christians sometimes put forward?
-
Are there miracles in the Bible that you have difficulty believing as true events? [p. 85] What makes them especially difficult? How do you resolve your difficulty? How satisfying is your resolution?
-
“It is one thing,” Keller says, “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” [p. 85]. Restate this in a way that someone who has thought little about the nature of science could understand.
-
“The existence of God can be neither demonstrably proven or disproven” [p. 86]. Does this statement by Keller surprise you? Does it make you uncomfortable about being a theist? Why or why not?
-
Keller quotes Macquarrie who argues that since science is based on the idea that all natural events are caused by other natural events, any sort of miracle “is irreconcilable with our modern understanding of both science and history.” Alvin Plantinga says, “Macquarrie perhaps means to suggest that the very practice of science requires that one reject the idea (e.g.) of God raising someone from the dead… [This] argument… is like the drunk who insisted on looking for his lost car keys only under the streetlight on the grounds that the light was better there. In fact, it would go the drunk one better: it would insist that because the keys would be hard to find in the dark, they must be under the light” [p. 85-86]. Is this argument compelling? Why or why not?
-
Keller distinguishes between evolution as the idea that “complex life-forms evolved from less complex forms through a process of natural selection,” and “Evolution as an All-encompassing Theory,” which he argues is not science but philosophy [p. 87]. Do you agree with this distinction? Why or why not?
-
Keller says that “Ian Barbour lays out four different ways that science and religion may be related to each other: conflict, dialogue, integration, and independence” [p. 88]. Define each. Which was the one you were taught as a child? If you are a visual person, and you imagine science and religion as two circles, how will they interact/intersect? Where do you find yourself now? Where are most of your friends and co-workers?
-
Remembering that this is an issue about which some people are very sensitive, did Keller’s understanding of Genesis 1 & 2 surprise you? [p. 93-94] Why? To what extent do you agree with him? More specifically, Keller sees Genesis 1 & 2 as similar to Judges 4 &5 and Exodus 14 &15. Read each of the three texts and note similarities and differences. “I think Genesis 1 has the earmarks of poetry,” Keller says, “and is therefore a ‘song’ about the wonder and meaning of God’s creation. Genesis 2 is an account of how it happened” [p. 94]. How does this change the meaning of the opening chapters of the creation account? How would you respond to Christians who disagree with his interpretation? How can we love one another while holding differing positions on this issue?
-
“For the record,” Keller states, “I think God guided some kind of process of natural selection, and yet I reject the concept of evolution as All-encompassing Theory” [p. 94]. Do you agree? Why or why not? Some leaders in Keller’s denomination would perhaps believe that Keller should not be ordained as a minister because of holding this view. How would you respond?
-
Have you ever heard someone say that miracles were easily believed by the “more primitive” people of biblical times? How does Keller disprove that assertion? [p. 95] What other texts of Scripture reveal similar doubts about a miracle occurring?
-
Keller points out that Jesus’ miracles were never designed to impress but to bring healing, to restore shalom to a broken world. “You never see him [Jesus] say something like: ‘See that tree over there? Watch me make it burst into flames!’ Instead, he used miraculous power to heal the sick, feed the hungry, and raise the dead. Why? We modern people think of miracles as the suspension of the natural order, but Jesus meant them to be the restoration of the natural order. The Bible tells us that God did not originally make the world to have disease, hunger, and death in it. Jesus has come to redeem where it is wrong and heal the world where it is broken. His miracles are not just proofs that he has power but also wonderful foretastes of what he is going to do with that power. Jesus’ miracles are not just a challenge to our minds, but a promise to our hearts that the world we all want is coming” [p. 95-96]. Have you ever heard this understanding of the miraculous before? How do you respond to the idea? How does this correspond to the claims of miracles we sometimes hear about today?
