Review: Can a Scientist Believe in Miracles?

May 5, 2022May 4, 2022 / rtrube54 / 5 Comments

Can a Scientist Believe in Miracles? Ian Hutchinson. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press/Veritas Books, 2018.

Summary: A collection of responses to questions about God and science asked by students at Veritas Forums on university campuses throughout the country.

There is a popular conception that science and religion are at war and that anyone who is engaged in scientific research rejects the idea of a God. If that is the case, Ian Hutchinson apparently didn’t get the memo. That’s all the more extraordinary because Hutchison is a plasma physicist doing research and teaching at MIT. He has published over two hundred peer-reviewed articles and at least two books in his field. And he didn’t grow up Christian, as he shares in this book. He came to faith in college after a careful search.

Hutchinson has been willing to go public with his faith, speaking at a number of university campuses through the Veritas Forum. One of the features of these speaking engagements are audience questions from students in attendance. Over the years, he has collected these questions, many of which concern how scientists can possibly embrace the Christian faith. In this work, after sharing his own journey to faith and subsequent life, he organizes these into thirteen chapters. In this case, listing the table of contents may be the best way to summarize the issues he covers:

Preface
1. A Spiritual Journey
2. Are There Realities Science Cannot Explain?
3. What Is Faith?
4. Do Scientists Have Faith?
5. Does Reason Support Christian Belief?
6. What Is Scientism?
7. Is There Really Spiritual Knowledge?
8. Creation and Cosmology
9. Do Miracles Happen?
10. The Bible and Science
11. Of All the World’s Religions, Why Christianity?
12. Why Does God Seem Hidden?
13. Is There Good and Evil?
14. Personal Consequences: So What?

As you can see, the title of the work is just one of these chapters. How he approaches this is a good reflection of the approach of the whole book. He starts with a definition of a miracle: a miracle is an extraordinary act of God. He observes that because of its extraordinary character, the existence of miracles cannot be proven or disproven because science requires reproducibility. This is actually modest because he admits that miracles involve interpretation. All science can do is speak to the likelihood of such an event. He also argues that the inviolability of nature’s laws is not a doctrine of science. Natural explanations of events needn’t be the only explanations. Quantum reality actually suggests a universe that is not a closed system of natural laws. He discounts many miracle legends and focuses on the miracles of the incarnation and resurrection as central to Christianity. Along the way, he addresses natural explanations as well as the possibility of miracles in other religions, arguing that these are most worth considering when consistent with the whole worldview of that religion.

Several things are striking: there is respect for the questions, the responses both explore the logic, as well as possible misconceptions, of the question and then offers reasoned responses with significant documentation. Throughout, there is high regard for the work of scientists and the results of science and the conviction that there is nothing in science that calls into question the existence of God or the truth of the central claims of Christianity. Actually, the question that is the most challenging for Hutchinson is not a scientific one but rather the existence of evil and the questions it raises of the goodness of God. He does offer thoughtful responses to this as well, and observes that evil is also a problem for the atheist.

Because of the question-based format, this does feel a bit like a question and answer session. That may be useful as a reference for someone who has similar questions or friends who do. It also reflects the tone I’ve witnessed when I’ve heard Hutchinson speak: articulate, forthright but not arrogant, gracious and yet well-reasoned. One interlocutor told me that he had checked out Hutchinson ahead of time and agreed to engage with him, convinced that they would have a real conversation, not a set up. And that’s what one finds here.

Review: Miracle Work

June 28, 2016June 27, 2016 / rtrube54 / 1 Comment

Miracle Work, Jordan Seng. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2013.

Summary: A description of how God wants to work through us to do things in the world, including supernatural things like healing, delivering people from demons, prophesying, or intercessory prayer.

Jordan Seng contends that the whole work of Christian ministry is God partnering with us to get things done in the world. In all of those things, God is the one empowering, and we are the ones doing–preaching, serving, calling people to faith. His contention is that this extends to the things we might call “supernatural”. God wants to partner with us in healing people, delivering them from the demonic, or speaking prophetically into people’s lives. He argues that God wants to work in these ways in a very “hands on” fashion literally–one person with another. It can be amazing, and it can be messy.

If you don’t come from a church where these things happen, this could be uncomfortable reading because it seems kind of wild, a bit out of control, or as Seng says, “weird.” But if we are convinced that God still wants to partner with his people in miraculous ways, as in other ways, then he suggests life could get pretty interesting.

One of the things about Seng’s book, as alluded to in the subtitle, is the “down to earthness” of his instruction. For example he describes his model of healing as follows:

Locate a sick person.
Place a hand on the person’s shoulder and say, “In the name of Jesus, be healed.”

That’s pretty much it.

I also appreciate his wisdom when healing does not occur to not look for a problem or lack of faith in the person prayed for, but to encourage people to return for prayer.

It’s similar in his instructions about the demonic, when one discerns the demonic(and he gives instruction on discerning), he simply says, “Demon, Jesus is Lord, and it is time for you to go. Now!” What I like here is that it is not elaborate rituals or formulas but the simple word of command in the name of Christ. This seems to conform most closely with biblical practice.

It is the case this does involve preparation in the life of the person ministering in these ways. All of this has to do with partnering with the God who is powerful so that his power grows in our lives. He proposes an equation that may seem over-simplistic to some, but that he unpacks in ways that make sense:

Authority + Gifting + Faith + Consecration = Power

Authority grows as a fruit of obedience to Jesus. While we can minister without gifting, gifting amplifies our ability to pursue that ministry. Faith grows as we believe (and invite others in our context to join us) God genuinely wants to do these good things, or rather wants us to do them in his power. Consecration involves separating from worldly practice and setting oneself apart by prayer and fasting. I had a mixed reaction to this “formula.” I absolutely affirm these elements. But he seems to speak in an almost quantitative way of amounts of each of these elements adding up to the amount of power and that lacks in one area can be made up for by plenty in other areas. I think I would simply want to pursue more of each, and nothing that hindered God’s work.

He also teaches in this book on ministries of prophecy and intercession. Each of the major teaching sections is inter-leaved with personal narrative. The book concludes with a discussion of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, marked in many instances but not all by speaking in tongues or some outward manifestation. This may be the most controversial for some, including myself, who would affirm that conversion and Spirit baptism go together. Yet I do think there is an important point in what he teaches. In many of our churches, we are effectively binatarians and do not instruct people in the presence and power of God’s Spirit in their lives, nor affirm the value of laying on of hands and praying for the fullness of the Spirit’s work in our lives. We would agree that this empowering presence is meant for all of the people of God.

I know of places where such things as Seng describes happen regularly. They believe God can work in power and they act in light of this knowledge. I wonder if what may hinder us in the places where this is not so is a combination of a very naturalistic outlook, and maybe more than a hint of fear that we really don’t want God to be that real. Maybe we fear abuses or excesses, but it always has seemed to me that the remedy for abuse is not disuse but proper use. What most persuaded me though was that God’s partnership with us in miraculous works is really no different from his partnership in the things we would deem more ordinary, and yet would seek to do in the power of God.

Review: Can We Still Believe the Bible?

March 17, 2015March 17, 2015 / rtrube54 / 2 Comments

Summary: an apologetic work on biblical scholarship refuting current “debunkers” of the Bible

There is a cottage industry that has developed around “debunking” the Bible. It goes something like this:

The Bible we have is hopelessly corrupted, having been copied and re-copied and this is evident in the numerous discrepancies in the extant manuscripts.
The Bible we have was the result of a political power move that suppressed other books that proclaimed a different, more “gnostic” Christianity. Finally these books are getting the attention they deserve.
With so many translations of the Bible, how can we trust any of them?
Given all these issues and various apparent discrepancies, can we possibly believe in an inerrant Bible?
Some of the passages of scripture that purport to be narrative history are either unhistorical or plain fiction.
Then there are all those miracles, similar to those in other mythical books. Isn’t the Bible simply another mythical work?

Clothed in the authority of “biblical scholarship” these contentions insinuate doubt in the minds of many believing people who base their beliefs and the way they live on what they find in these scriptures.

Craig Blomberg, an accomplished Biblical scholar answers each of these contentions, arguing that such contentions distort the evidence of biblical scholarship, concluding with a resounding “yes” to the question in this book’s title.

For example, he argues that the manuscript evidence actually argues for the high probability that the text of the scripture we have is very close to what was written. Discrepancies between manuscripts don’t affect any fundamental teaching of Christian faith and most are simply minor copying errors.

Those supposedly “suppressed” books? They were known but never enjoyed the significant level of support from various church communities as did most of the canonical books. Also, the books that are being argued for typically were written a century or more later (with the exception of the Gospel of Thomas) than the canonical works.

All those translations? Actually, the standard versions all reflect the careful work of translation committees and actually read remarkably similarly. Except for those originating in sectarian groups, any of these can be profitably read. The main difference in translations tends to be around differing approaches that either focus more on word for word translation of more for accuracy of meaning in the language of the translation.

Most interesting are the next two chapters discussing whether it is possible to hold to a position of inerrancy and whether some “narratives” are unhistorical and what this means for our ideas of inerrancy. And here, Blomberg becomes more explicit about the reality that he is not simply arguing for a believable Bible against the debunkers, but also that it is possible to affirm inerrancy without dismissing serious scholarly claims and questions–for example about the possibility that Job may not be historical (Blomberg does not contend this but allows that those who hold this are not denying inerrancy). Blomberg thinks these rigid positions (far more rigid than the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy which Blomberg uses as a benchmark) are in fact harmful to evangelicalism in creating the kind of “all or nothing” stance that leads those who can’t affirm all to go to the other extreme of affirming nothing (as he thinks has happened to scholars like Bart Ehrman).

His last chapter focuses on miracles. He sees the biblical accounts differing from others in not being sensational but rather confirming the power of God over “the gods” and confirming the messianic character of Christ and his people and encouraging belief. Of course the paramount miracle central to all is the resurrection.

It was something of a surprise that Blomberg would defend the language of inerrancy. He is one of the few scholars of late who tries to argue inerrancy while engaging critical scholarship. This is tougher to do because it begs the question of apparent errors that other approaches around the terms infallible or trustworthy have to deal with only by implication. I actually found this, particularly as Blomberg framed it, refreshing.

This book is most useful for the student or thoughtful Christian who encounters these debunking efforts, and for apologists in providing the basic outlines of a response based in good, if evangelically based, scholarship. For those who wish to go further, the notes provide extensive additional scholarly sources.

I suspect that Blomberg will be dismissed by more liberal scholarship and attacked by conservatives. I admire his willingness to let the chips fall where they may in this effort to provide a thoughtful work for those facing the debunkers’ challenges. He models an approach that embraces both orthodoxy and engaged biblical scholarship.

Review: The God of Nature: Incarnation and Contemporary Science

January 8, 2015January 8, 2015 / rtrube54 / 2 Comments

The God of Nature: Incarnation and Contemporary Science by Christopher C. Knight
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

One of the challenges for anyone who is a theist is how to explain God’s interaction with the physical world. Of particular concern is explaining the “miraculous” or the “supernatural.” Classically, God’s interaction with the world has been described in terms of “general” and “special” providence. General providence is his work in and through the “laws of nature” established in his creative work. Special providence refers to his “interventions” in the miraculous, and perhaps also to God’s work through intercessory prayer.

These kinds of “breaking in” events are problematic to scientists committed to the regularity of the natural order. For some who retain a belief in God, the response has been to maintain some sort of theistic naturalism, which often seems to incorporate miracles into God’s creation instructions. The difficulty is that this is hard to distinguish from deism, the idea of a clockwork universe that God has wound up and set running.

Christopher C. Knight explores this landscape and seeks to provide a different framework that would see the miraculous as a “breaking out” or “breaking through” a fallen creation where God is working within to restore and fulfill his purposes. Key to his thinking is the Incarnation and an understanding of that which draws heavily on Eastern Orthodox theology, particularly its understanding of the logos, in and through whom creation came to exist and is sustained. God is a continuing “primary cause” of all that occurs in nature even if scientists may only have access to “secondary” causes. Because of the fall, sometimes God’s activity consists in breaking out or through the grime of the fall to restore and fulfill his purposes, supremely in the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus.

This seems to me to be an intriguing proposal but one about which I have some questions. In taking this stance, Knight identifies his position of “incarnational naturalism” with panentheism, the idea that all that exists is in God (rather than pantheism, which says that all is God). While panentheism seems an attractive alternative to classical theism which emphasizes the distinction or transcendence of God vis a vis the creation, I think it means giving up some essential and distinctively Christian truths. If all the creation is in God, then in some sense evil is as well. And if God is identified with this then salvation is not a Holy God acting on behalf of a fallen world in redemption but rather God and the world striving together to attain God’s creation purposes. Furthermore, I am concerned with the reality that panentheism may collapse into eastern pantheism or into some form of universalism, which I do detect at points in Knight’s writing, particularly in his pyschological-referential account of revelatory events which seems to put other revelatory experiences on a par with Christian revelation. [I will note that for me this account was the most difficult to understand part of the book.]

What I found of value was that, classically we have spoken of God being both transcendent and immanent, but often seem to be at a loss to reconcile how God is immanent with the laws of nature. I would argue that one needn’t resort to panentheism to argue for the incarnational naturalism Knight contends for. The presence of the Logos in his creation that reaches fulfillment in Jesus, the God-man is fully consonant with the biblical narrative and an understanding of God who is both transcendent and immanent.

The book is closely written and assumes a certain familiarity with historical theology both Eastern and Western. Chapter 15, titled “A New Understanding” serves as a good recapitulation and summary of his argument that was helpful to me in pulling it all together. Before his “Afterword” he includes a chapter on intercessory prayer within the model he proposes.

While I take issue with the panentheism this author proposes, I believe his efforts to draw upon Eastern Orthodox thought, his thinking about the incarnation, and his effort to propose a “non-interventionist” explanation for miracles needs to be considered in the ongoing dialogue about faith and science and is a worthy addition to Fortress Press’s “Faith and the Sciences” series.

View all my reviews