What do you think?
Rate this book
In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God's Action in History
304 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 1997
1 person is currently reading
22 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
September 17, 2024
A COMPREHENSIVE EVANGELICAL REVIEW OF THE SUBJECT
Gary Habermas (born 1950) is Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy and chairman of the department of philosophy and theology at Liberty University, and is a foremost evangelical apologist who has written many books such as 'The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus,' 'The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ,' 'Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?: The Resurrection Debate,' 'Resurrected?: An Atheist and Theist Dialogue,' 'Did the Resurrection Happen?', etc. R. Douglas Geivett is an associate professor of philosophy at Biola University, and has written/edited other books such as 'Contemporary Perspectives on Religious Epistemology and Faith,' 'Film and Philosophy: Big Ideas on the Big Screen.'
This 1997 book begins with "The Case Against Miracles," reprinting works by David Hume and Antony Flew. Following this are fifteen essays by writers such as Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Robert C. Newman, etc., as well as Habermas and Geivett.
The editors explain in the Introduction, "many of the most fundamental questions about miracles are philosophical in nature... The first category relates to concerns about whether it is reasonable to think that miracles have occurred... The second category focuses on the role that miracles might play in supporting other religious beliefs... Both sets of questions are the focus of close critical attention in this book." (Pg. 10)
Geisler argues, "Hume does not really WEIGH evidence for miracles; rather, he ADDS evidence against them. Since death occurs over and over again and resurrection occurs only on rare occasions at best, Hume simply adds up all the deaths against the very few alleged resurrections and rejects the latter... But this does not involve weighing evidence to determine whether or not a given person, say Jesus of Nazareth ... has been raised from the dead." (Pg. 78)
An essayist deals with C.S. Lewis's argument against naturalism: "What metaphysical naturalism does, according to Lewis, is sever what should be unseverable: the link between conclusions and the grounds or reasons for those conclusions... Thus, the thrust of Lewis's argument against naturalism becomes clear. By definition, metaphysical naturalism excludes the possible existence of anything beyond nature, anything outside the box. But the process of reasoning REQUIRES something that exceeds the bounds of nature, namely, the laws of logical inference." (Pg. 126-127)
Another essayist says, "many philosophical schools of both Hinduism and Buddhism... assume a pantheistic worldview, a view that identifies 'God' as an impersonal Ultimate Reality. Pantheism has no category labeled 'free act by a divine person.' So miracles are as alien to all forms of pantheism as they are to theism. A miracle, an act of a personal God, could hardly support the truth of a worldview that denies the existence of a personal God." (Pg. 203)
Habermas and Geivett conclude, "one can responsibly believe in miracles without having PROOF that miracles have happened. The demand for proof as a condition for believing is unrealistically and unnecessarily high. Much of what we believe results from thinking about what makes the most sense in light of the evidence at our disposal... Of course, we may also change our minds when we encounter new evidence or when we come to see different relationships among the evidential data. One need not postpone belief in miracles if one has reason to believe that one has investigated an appropriate range of evidence for and against miracles. If one's evidence for miracles is much greater than one's evidence against miracles, then it is intellectually responsible for one to believe that miracles have happened." (Pg. 277-278)
As often with such collections as this, the value of the individual essays included varies considerably. Nevertheless, this book will be of keen interest to students of Christian apologetics, and (less so) to students of the philosophy of religion.
Gary Habermas (born 1950) is Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy and chairman of the department of philosophy and theology at Liberty University, and is a foremost evangelical apologist who has written many books such as 'The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus,' 'The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ,' 'Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?: The Resurrection Debate,' 'Resurrected?: An Atheist and Theist Dialogue,' 'Did the Resurrection Happen?', etc. R. Douglas Geivett is an associate professor of philosophy at Biola University, and has written/edited other books such as 'Contemporary Perspectives on Religious Epistemology and Faith,' 'Film and Philosophy: Big Ideas on the Big Screen.'
This 1997 book begins with "The Case Against Miracles," reprinting works by David Hume and Antony Flew. Following this are fifteen essays by writers such as Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Robert C. Newman, etc., as well as Habermas and Geivett.
The editors explain in the Introduction, "many of the most fundamental questions about miracles are philosophical in nature... The first category relates to concerns about whether it is reasonable to think that miracles have occurred... The second category focuses on the role that miracles might play in supporting other religious beliefs... Both sets of questions are the focus of close critical attention in this book." (Pg. 10)
Geisler argues, "Hume does not really WEIGH evidence for miracles; rather, he ADDS evidence against them. Since death occurs over and over again and resurrection occurs only on rare occasions at best, Hume simply adds up all the deaths against the very few alleged resurrections and rejects the latter... But this does not involve weighing evidence to determine whether or not a given person, say Jesus of Nazareth ... has been raised from the dead." (Pg. 78)
An essayist deals with C.S. Lewis's argument against naturalism: "What metaphysical naturalism does, according to Lewis, is sever what should be unseverable: the link between conclusions and the grounds or reasons for those conclusions... Thus, the thrust of Lewis's argument against naturalism becomes clear. By definition, metaphysical naturalism excludes the possible existence of anything beyond nature, anything outside the box. But the process of reasoning REQUIRES something that exceeds the bounds of nature, namely, the laws of logical inference." (Pg. 126-127)
Another essayist says, "many philosophical schools of both Hinduism and Buddhism... assume a pantheistic worldview, a view that identifies 'God' as an impersonal Ultimate Reality. Pantheism has no category labeled 'free act by a divine person.' So miracles are as alien to all forms of pantheism as they are to theism. A miracle, an act of a personal God, could hardly support the truth of a worldview that denies the existence of a personal God." (Pg. 203)
Habermas and Geivett conclude, "one can responsibly believe in miracles without having PROOF that miracles have happened. The demand for proof as a condition for believing is unrealistically and unnecessarily high. Much of what we believe results from thinking about what makes the most sense in light of the evidence at our disposal... Of course, we may also change our minds when we encounter new evidence or when we come to see different relationships among the evidential data. One need not postpone belief in miracles if one has reason to believe that one has investigated an appropriate range of evidence for and against miracles. If one's evidence for miracles is much greater than one's evidence against miracles, then it is intellectually responsible for one to believe that miracles have happened." (Pg. 277-278)
As often with such collections as this, the value of the individual essays included varies considerably. Nevertheless, this book will be of keen interest to students of Christian apologetics, and (less so) to students of the philosophy of religion.
Displaying 1 of 1 review