Description

Note: This post makes mention of Ravi Zacharias. It is with a heavy heart that I must acknowledge a tragic independent report concerning evidence of sexual abuse and predatory behavior on the part of Ravi Zacharias. This man was a huge inspiration to me, as is evident from reading my blog, and the news was more than heart shattering. Some ministries leaders have come to the conclusion that removing articles about and references to Ravi is the right move; I have come to a different conclusion, and here is why:

1. Though I cannot begin go to imagine the grief or pain of those Ravi hurt and the emotional toll of his behavior, it is also the case that to discredit a piece of information due to the character of the source of such behavior is to commit the genetic fallacy. If I quote or mention Ravi, it is because I believe those items to contain truth value on their own merit.
2. To go back and change previously written information without a careful disclaimer is, I believe, a form of revisionist history. If a disclaimer must be offered anyway, I believe there is value in keeping the material accessible. So while I know it is a difficult ask to say, “Just trust the ideas and disregard his personal character,” I must ask that of you as a careful thinker.
3. I have seen a lot of comparisons by Christians to not removing Ravi’s work because biblical characters like King David and others had fallen into terrible sin, and they have obviously been given to us as a gift to learn from (Romans 15:4). Why “cancel” Ravi if we’re not “cancelling” the Bible? It does seem to me, though, that there are two problems with this line of thinking: (1) These books are inspired by God and thus we can trust his revelation to us. They were examples given for a purpose. (2) These characters also seemed to show true biblical repentance of their wicked actions. Ravi remained unrepentant until his dying day. Therefore, I do not think these are 1-and-1 comparisons. This behavior reflects SERIOUS error and dangerous behavior on the part of Ravi and, to an unknown degree, RZIM as a whole, and that must not be taken lightly or swept under the rug.

I do not expect you to agree completely with this decision. I do ask that you respect the thought, prayer, and seeking of counsel in which I engaged regarding it.

Do miracles happen?

One of the primary reasons people take issue with religious thought is that it almost necessarily involves a concept of the miraculous—an offensive idea to one living in the 21st century West.

We’ve got it all figured out, right?

We know that “science has disproven miracles” and that the laws of nature can basically account for most (all?) phenomena that we experience.

Actually, it may surprise you that this attitude toward the miraculous is not shared by most people in the world.

Even so, it’s an issue worth talking about, because the possibility of the miraculous is most definitely required for the Christian worldview to be true. It makes miracle claims: Creation ex-nihilo, bodily resurrection, miraculous healing—none of these can work if the miraculous cannot happen.

What is a miracle?

This is a good place to start. After all, how can we form an opinion about the miraculous if we don’t even know what it is?

The 18th-century philosopher David Hume famously objected to miracles. In Can Man Live Without God?, Zacharias clarifies and succinctly responds to Hume:

Hume’s argument against miracles…runs something like this: Since a miracle is a violation or exception to a law of nature, by definition it is based on the lower degree of probability. A wise man, says Hume, will always base his belief on the highest degree of probability; therefore, a wise man will disbelieve in miracles.

Hume’s argument is somewhat strained once again. For example, the possibility of this world happening, even according to the strongest antitheist, is as close to zero as one can get. Therefore, the wise man should deny the existence of the world. His argument is dreadfully circular: He first assumes that miracles can never happen and then concludes that they have never occurred. The real wise man, to counter Hume, would be one who would make his conclusion based on the evidence.1

I think most skeptics would agree that we should make judgments based on arguments and evidence, therefore, it would be prudent to first discover whether a miracle has occurred, rather than to speculate whether they can.

And here is why we have to know what counts as a miracle. Is the mere fact that there is something rather than nothing a miracle? What else can it be?

Hume simply got the definition wrong. He claims that a miracle violates the laws of nature, but why think this is the case? Do I violate the laws of nature when I interrupt my falling pen from hitting the ground? Surely not; I merely intervene.

The subject of Divine Action (i.e, God’s working and interacting within the world) is a huge one, but it is certainly not defeasible by the mere assertion that the laws of nature are violated when the miraculous takes place.

To the skeptic of miracles, I would simply begin with one of the naturalist’s favorite subjects: human evolution.

For the sake of argument, if evolution had occurred, by what measurement would we decide whether or not it was miraculous? Was it just the laws of nature working on biological material? If probability is to be brought to be bear, does that change the equa...