The Filipino Group discussion
This topic is about
Miracles
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Buddy Reads
>
Miracles by C.S. Lewis (with K.D., Louize, Dante and Cary) Start: June 25
date
newest »
newest »
I finished Ch 7 last night and, compared to the earlier chapters, it is easy to understand. There are two red herrings, i.e., techniques of diverting attention to the real subject matter.See the summary of Louize above (ha ha).
My answers to her questions (ngayon ko lang napansin na may ganito):
Q: Lewis challenged the idea that belief in miracles was more predominant in the past because people were more ignorant of the Natural laws. Do you think this is still a widespread assumption today?
K.D. SAYS: Yes, it is still happening. Like we still say that when there is a comet, it means something like a big calamity or war.
Q: “It is a profound mistake to imagine that Christianity ever intended to dissipate the bewilderment and even the terror, the sense of our own nothingness, which comes upon us when we think about the nature of things… without such sensations there is no religion.” Do you agree with Lewis that a sense of smallness should be a necessary part of our response to the universe around us?
K.D. SAYS: Oh yes, the "smallness" is humbling. But they say that each of us is created in the own image and likeness of God and each of us is special so, even if we are small in relation to the whole universe, we are still loved by God.
4. Naturalism cannot account for acts of reason. Reason is not part of the great interlocked system of Nature. It is something other than Nature or any of its parts. It points to the existence of a reality "beyond" Nature. It points to the reality of God. So, Supernaturalism makes more sense than Naturalism, for according to the former, there was already Reason (God or God's mind) prior to Nature.
So, Lewis is basically saying that a non-rational cause (Nature) cannot produce a rational effect (reason). Since there is such a thing as reason which is distinct from Nature, the cause must be rational. Therefore, the cause of reason must be rational. So, it can't be Nature, for it is non-rational. It can only be a Mind or a Reason: in other words, God.
"Lewis made his arguments on Dualism, what is yours?"Lewis argued against Dualism. For him, God and Nature are not co-equal. He says that it makes more sense to say that God created Nature.
I finished up to Ch 10 tonight. The chapter on Horrid Red Things.The title is from the fact that the daughter thinks that only poison has red horrid things inside. Lewis compares this with the image of London in his mind: a train station. Yon lang naintindihan ko hak hak.
5.Another difficulty in Naturalism, in addition to reason, is the existence of objective morality. If Naturalism is true, moral values (good and evil) and moral duties (right and wrong) are just illusions. They are subjective and relative to each person's taste and preference. If Naturalism is true, moral values and duties are just the non-moral and non-rational products (effects) of the non-moral and non-rational process (cause) of evolution through natural selection. Since morality is in fact objective and independent of human taste and preference (we know this through our conscience; it is self-evident), its cause must be moral and rational.
"A moment after they [the Naturalists] have admitted that good and evil are illusions, you will find them exhorting us to work for posterity, to educate, revolutionize,liquidate, live and die for the sake of the human race."Q: Do you think these contradictions are valid without moral judgment? Please explain.
I'm not sure if I understand the question.
If Naturalism is true that morality is just a by-product of evolution through natural selection, then yes, morality is just an illusion. Thus, the Naturalist is contradicting himself every time he fights for a cause, no matter how noble it may sound like -- to "revolutionize, educate, live and die for the sake of people", etc. -- for if morality is just subjective and relative, educating, living and dying for others, etc., are not objectively good. Neither are they bad. They're just morally-neutral acts.
I am now in Ch 11 page 136. I printed the site where Louize is getting her questions. There are also 1-liner summary of each chapter there and I am using it to guide me in my reading.In this chapter for example, there is the differentiation between Pantheism (the belief that Universe and God are one) and Theism (belief in the existence of one God). Yon lang ang naintindihan ko hak hak.
Hi. Sorry for this late posts...My schedule "kind of" got hectic. I am presently re-writing modules for a series of seminars this July. Sudden changes were necessary due to unforeseen events. So medyo halo-halo ang thoughts ko. hehehe
KD, ok lang yan! We can conquer C.S. Lewis together!
9 A Chapter Not Strictly Necessary “I take literally the statement in the Gospel of John that God loves the world. I believe that the world was created and approved by love, that it subsists, coheres, and endures by love, and that, insofar as it is redeemable, it can be redeemed only by love. I believe that divine love, incarnate and indwelling in the world, summons the world always toward wholeness, which ultimately is reconciliation and atonement with God.” ― Wendell Berry, The Art of the Commonplace: The Agrarian Essays
Well, contrary to this chapter’s title, I think Lewis thought this as necessary or else he wouldn’t have written it.
The idea that Nature was made or that she doesn’t exist on her own will mean that she is not Absolute -that she has good points and bad points. Nature is a creature, created by God; we cannot find all the answers in this world through her, but beyond her. To treat Nature as everything is to lose the whole pleasure she offers. As Lewis quoted, the scientists say she will run down and die, but the theologians say she is to be redeemed. I’d say, I do prefer her being redeemed by God than die.
A Chapter Not Strictly NecessaryQ: “To treat her [Nature] as God, or as Everything, is to lose the whole pith and pleasure of her.” How do we appreciate Nature then?
10 Horrid Red Things“The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.” - John Adams, Second President of the United States
Any study of Nature does not hold any secure hold against Miracles, and Miracles cannot be left out when we talk about Christianity. Christian doctrines have always been statements about spiritual reality, not specimens of primitive physical science. Some people say the Supernatural would never interfere with the Natural, so they reject especially Christianity because it is the story of a great Miracle, the Incarnation. For them, it is too primitive an idea that God has a Son that came down from heaven, born to a virgin, descended into hell, and then ascended back into heaven. Okay, primitive man might not have been able to conceive of pure spirit, but also couldn’t conceive of mere matter. But through Lewis’ principle of thoughts, we learned (and I do hope I am learning it right) that absurdity of images does not imply absurdity of the doctrines. This, Lewis illustrated by stating that for a girl to think that any Red Thing poisonous is a mistake; but she knows perfectly well that a poison is something that can kill you if you swallow it.
Horrid Red ThingsQ: In this chapter Lewis suggests that Christianity is the only religion that depends on the authenticity of miracles. Why? Do you agree with him?
11 Christianity and Religion“When we say God is a spirit, we know what we mean, as well as we do when we say that the pyramids of Egypt are matter. Let us be content, therefore, to believe him to be a spirit, that is, an essence that we know nothing of, in which originally and necessarily reside all energy, all power, all capacity, all activity, all wisdom, all goodness.” – Pres. John Adams, Letter to Thomas Jefferson (17 January 1820)
Christians say that God has done miracles, but the sort of God conceived by the popular “religion” of our day wouldn’t. Lewis said that this religion is called pantheism.
“The Hebrew writings here observe an admirable balance. Once God says simply I AM, proclaiming the mystery of self-existence.”
The pantheist sees Nature as a medium instead of creation, and sees God as present but diffused everywhere. He sees us all as parts of God and believes god to be equally present in evil and good, and therefore indifferent to both. The Christian, on the other hand, counters that God is present at every point of space and time and locally present in none (omnipresent). We are dependent on God and related to Him as the “made” to the “maker”. God is present in a different way in man than He is in matter (in spirit), and is present differently in some men (in those who accepted Jesus as Saviour) than in others, and present differently in Jesus (in Trinity) than in anyone else.
“If God created the world, then He is precisely the source of this torrent, and it alone gives our truest principles anything to be true about. But if God is the ultimate source of all concrete, individual things and events, then God Himself must be concrete, and individual in the highest degree.”
The Pantheist’s God demands nothing, and is impersonal. Me, I prefer the Personal God -alive, demanding that I live righteously, can be frightening most times. If somehow, we get involved with that God (or He gets involved with us); we could be in for anything… even miracles.
Christianity and ReligionQ: Lewis said that Pantheism is “the permanent natural bent of the human mind”. Do you think it is more acceptable to have an impersonal God than a Personal God?
6.Lewis clarified that so far he hasn't argued for the existence of souls.
All he has argued thus far is that Reason and Morality are proofs that there are "things" other than Nature, and that they point to the existence of God. God is the source of Reason and Morality.
He also said that Reason and Morality, and Nature's creation itself, already are, in a sense, examples of miracles! But he will be using the word "miracle" in another sense for the rest of the book -- that of events which God caused or causes to happen in the world.
I was not able to read this book last night. I'll catch up tonight. Busy book hunting :)
I finished Ch 11 this morning but there is nothing I can add from the message I wrote in #54 above.I'll resume reading early tonight while waiting for the telecon. Good morning, book buddies!
Good morning guys!7.
Lewis talks about two "red herring" reasons given by people who don't think that miracles are possible or probable.
But first, a recap, for some perspective:
Lewis has argued in this way so far:
(1) We should not rule out miracles at the outset when we investigate claims about miracles (in particular, those found in Christian Scripture);
(2)Miracles are only possible in principle if Supernaturalism (i.e., the view that there's a Reality which created Nature) is true;
(3) Naturalism is problematic because it cannot explain Reason in terms of the whole "interlocked system" of Nature (i.e., Reason is something other than Nature);
(4) Reason points to the existence of God: Reason must have existed prior to Nature. Thus, Naturalism is probably false and Supernaturalism is probably true;
(5) The existence of Morality also points to the existence of God: Morality is also something other than Nature;
(6) Thus, Reason and Morality point to the existence of God. Reason and Morality, and the creation of Nature itself, are in one sense examples of miracles. But Lewis will talk about miracles in another sense for the rest of the book -- that of events which are suspensions of the normal operations of Nature that are caused by God.
(7) Therefore, miracles are possible in principle (because Supernaturalism is true or God exists). But that doesn't necessarily mean that they're probable or that they must happen. Miracles don't necessarily happen even if God exists for a couple of reasons:
(a) God's nature excludes it (e.g., He may simply choose not to cause miraculous events in Nature), or
(b) Nature's nature excludes it.
The latter reasons are what Lewis calls "red herrings" because they are trivial or unimportant; hence, they distract us from the important objections or arguments against the probability of miracles. He discusses two of them:
(a) People in the old days believed in miracles because they didn't know how Nature regularly operates, and
(b) Because they thought they're so important in the eyes of God (for example, they believed that the earth lay at the center of the universe, etc).
Lewis said that the above objections don't work because people in the old days already knew how Nature operates (at the very least, they can distinguish miracles from non-miracles: for instance, St. Joseph knew that a woman cannot get pregnant without physical relations with a man), and they already had a sense of how small the earth and man is vis-a-vis God's whole created order.
Q: "What is the popular understanding of the Supernatural?"I guess souls, spirits, ghosts and ghouls... :)
"Q: Lewis challenged the idea that belief in miracles was more predominant in the past because people were more ignorant of the Natural laws. Do you think this is still a widespread assumption today?"Oh, yes. I think so. This is still a common objection nowadays.
And this is the first time I've heard answers to those objections that makes sense. Thanks Prof. Lewis!
If I will encounter these objections in the future, here's how I will answer them:
Friend: People in the Bible believed in miracles because they were ignorant. Take for instance, their belief in the Virgin Birth, or Christ's resurrection.
Today, we know those things cannot happen. Science tells us that virgin births are impossible, and that people don't rise from the dead.
Me: They may not have more knowledge than we do today about how the laws of Nature work, but I think that at the very least they did know that a woman can't get pregnant without sexual intercourse (hence, St. Joseph was initially scandalized and hurt) and that a man cannot rise from the dead (hence, the apostles' skepticism -- and in particular Thomas -- when some of the women reported to them that Jesus was risen. Peter and John found it hard to believe, so that they even ran to the tomb to see for themselves if it was true).
"Q: "It is a profound mistake to imagine that Christianity ever intended to dissipate the bewilderment and even the terror, the sense of our own nothingness, which comes upon us when we think about the nature of things… without such sensations there is no religion." Do you agree with Lewis that a sense of smallness should be a necessary part of our response to the universe around us?"
Yes. When I look at the universe -- at the stars, planets, and galaxies around us -- and see how unimaginably huge it is (huge beyond our wildest dreams), I don't just feel my utter smallness, I also feel awe... But that doesn't affect in any way my belief about God's existence. In fact, the more I marvel at the universe, the more I marvel at God's power, intelligence, and creativity.
I got engrossed with GGM's The Autumn of the Patriarch. Now that I am done with that, I'll resume reading this today. Sorry but this book is really hard to read.
I agree, Kuya D. It challenges the mind. And for that reason I love it! Haha
I am done reading the book while in the church this morning. The last two chapters and the epilogue are easier to understand as they use common example of what we consider as miracles both in the Old and New Testaments. However, I will not give any opinions here so as not to spoil your reading. Trust me though that the blurry first half of the book will get some good applications towards the end.However, I still don't know what to say about this book. Right at this moment, I can rate this as 1 (too harsh), 2 (most likely), 3 (still a possibility) or 4 (if when I review the blogs, I will see something that I missed). 5 is far-fetched but still a possibility.
FINIS but will still be dropping by to react to your messages. Thanks for agreeing to read this with me, Louize and Dante. Thanks for making me aware of the link to the Study Guide, Louize. You two are tops!
12 The Propriety of Miracles“Hope, insofar as it is hope of resurrection, is the living contradiction of what it proceeds from and what is placed under the sign of the Cross and death.” -Paul Ricoeur
The question is this: If God made it right, then why would He have to circle back around and adjust it with miracles?
Some people have said that God is so beyond doing miracles because only an incompetent worker will produce work that needs interference during its sound course of development. Lewis explained that just like in a story, the uniformity of the plot is not what the story is about. Miracles are not God’s scheme to get out of a jam. Miracles are like the turning point in every story, wrapping the whole plot all together to complete the story; without it the story is incomplete. God shape miracles into life, if he had not then that’s the real inconsistency.
Therefore, Death and Resurrection are what life is all about; they’re what the story is all about. The very fact of Resurrection, certainly a miracle, tells us there’s a deeper reality beyond what we see every day. There’s something stronger at work than the fact that we live, and then we die. And what’s really important is that this deeper reality is there for us, we just have to be very attentive readers.
13 On Probability“From principles is derived probability, but truth or certainty is obtained only from facts.” -Tom Stoppard
Men believe in the uniformity of nature because we believe in the recurrence of situations, we don’t take into account changes when we plan, and we cherish uniformity. (I admit to that…OCDmuch!)
Since we have already accepted the occurrences of miracles, how do we know if the miraculous did happen? By our ‘innate sense of the fitness of things‘, that same sense of fitness which led us to anticipate that the universe would be orderly. It’s nothing new; really, it is a principle we always use, said Lewis.
I take it as this: If life is a story, and miracles are the turning point fitted to wrap the whole story; then improbable miracles are the unfitted ones. We would know because it doesn’t make the whole story straight.
Lewis promised that he’ll present the fitness of the miracles of Christian faith on the next 3 chapters.
14 The Grand MiracleI believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary…
…he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven… - The Apostles’ Creed
The Grand miracle for Christians is the Incarnation -which God became man. Other Christian miracles prepares for this, or exhibits this, or results from this. The fitness or credibility of Christian miracles depends on their relationship to this Grand Miracle.
In the Incarnation, we see the power of the greater to include the less. God descended to ascend back again. He comes down to come up again and bring the whole ruined world with Him. The purpose of this Grand miracle is for the redemption of mankind (nature).
But how can the Nature created by a good God come to be in this condition – imperfect and depraved? Because of sin. Sin was possible because God gave us free will. But death is the prize of sin. And so, death is the thing Christ came to conquer and the means by which He conquered through Resurrection. The greater the sin, the greater the mercy: the deeper the death, the brighter the rebirth (that seems a good quote so I borrowed it). The Incarnation was necessary to bring about Resurrection –a completion of the story. It gives our life sense.
Hi KD and Dante!sorry for my delayed posts...
I am currently busy with a series of seminars. It was previously scheduled as 2 weekends, something happened, now it was moved to 3 consecutive Saturdays. Nabulabog tuloy ang preparations ko, and have to make adjustments to my modules, if not late ako ng bongga sa F2F7. (at dito daw biglang nagvent-out, hahahaha)
Kuya, thank you din and welcome.
I hope you'll still visit this thread and read our insights; and if possible answer the questions.
Ngapala, sinong Charles? o_O hehehe
Hi Louize!Ako din, sobrang late na ako sa reading ko sa book :-(
I got busy with a lot of work (pending reports, etc.) and with my responsibilities as a dad (changing diapers, playing with baby, helping him take a bath, etc.)...
Yup, I was also wondering who Charles was hahaha... :-D
Aw, hindi na-post 'yung mga questions ko... ulitin ko na lang.12 The Propriety of Miracles
Q: Do you agree that with the rest that miracles are but conveniences made by God?
13 On Probability
Q: Do you also cherish uniformity? After reading Lewis' arguments, do you still feel the same?
14 The Grand Miracle
Q: Do you agree with Lewis that the central miracle of the Christian faith is the Incarnation?
My apologies. Dante, I should see you someday when you come to visit Manila.
15 Miracles of the Old Creation“Our first concern about the gospel miracles should be not to "defend" them but to understand them. And when we have learned to do that, we shall find that their defense can take care of itself.” -F.F. Bruce
As per Lewis, the difference of the Christian miracles from the non-Christian miracles (if ever they do exist) lies in the fact that they show invasion by a Power which is not alien. It is something to be expected when Nature is invaded by the very Power who created her, which is outside her jurisdiction not as alien but as a sovereign. (I agree.)
Lewis continued by enumerating different non-Christian miracles, and disproves their authenticity. Meanwhile, he said in Christianity, the more we get to know the God who is present and the purpose why He came, the more credible miracles become. That is why, Lewis argued, that the Christians asking for non-miraculous Christianity are minds abandoning the Christian doctrine.
I like this best: “Each miracle writes for us in small letters something that God has already written, or will write, in letters almost too large to be noticed, across the whole canvas of Nature.”
16 Miracles of the New Creation“I think that the core doctrines of Christianity - the incarnation, the resurrection, life after death-these are as strong as ever. In fact, the belief in life after death has increased in this century.” -Andrew Greeley
As with the apostles of the old, to preach Christianity meant to preach the resurrection. Resurrection is not merely the act of rising from the dead, but the state of having risen. The resurrection was not regarded as evidence for the immortality of the soul—it was the beginning of something new, a New Creation. Lewis cited several evidences of this through events in the Bible (like the Transfiguration, the resurrection of Lazarus). It was seen as the first event of its kind in the whole history of the universe, a pioneer that paves the way for the rest of mankind. Heaven will not be just a state of mind. It will be a state of the body as well as part of the New Nature. Christ goes to prepare a place for us in that whole new Nature, which accommodates His glorified humanity, and ours.
17 Epilogue“Many Christians I know seem to act as though they come in contact with the supernatural just twice -- once when they are justified and become a Christian and once when they die. The rest of the time they act as though they were sitting in the materialist's chair.” -Francis Schaeffer Death in the City (Downers Grove, Inter Varsity Press: 1969)
In closing, Lewis encourages us to make our own independent judgment. If in evidence we find him wrong, he asked us to refute him (like duh, he’s dead na diba? hehehe) The possibility that we may see or witness a miracle in our lifetime is very slim. There’s no oddity in our life that science cannot explain nowadays, it seems. And to expect miracles to happen without accepting it to be real is inviting misery.
As for me, I agree with Steven Mosley, “Miracles are participant phenomena; they rarely happen to bystanders”. If the whole of nature is stirred into motion by the Grand Miracle; then, instead of merely expecting a miracle to happen for us, let us do our best to aid this Grand Miracle into moving along. The rest of the story is not done yet, it will never be if we’re all just standing about.
15 Miracles of the Old CreationQ: Is there a particular non-Christian miracle you know or believed?
16 Miracles of the New Creation
Q: Some Christians believe that Resurrection is the immortality of the soul, do you agree? Why?
17 Epilogue
Q: What is your general reaction to this book?
It is okay to react violently, of course. hehehehe
Each miracle writes for us in small letters something that God has already written, or will write, in letters almost too large to be noticed, across the whole canvas of Nature.Why, Louize, I certainly like this too! Miracles, at least for us Christians, are God's reminders of His unending love.
Wow, you're both done na! I'm way behind... :(
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
The Filipino Group
Books mentioned in this topic
Mere Christianity (other topics)Miracles (other topics)
Miracles (other topics)
A thought just occurred to me: It will take a miracle for me to finish this book."
Hahaha, then by all means let us pray for one. :)
Chapters 3 and..."
Wow, I hope that will be true for me too. I hope things will get easier from chapter 3 or 4... :D
I got out of chapter 3 in a daze: I didn't understand everything he said, yet somehow I got what I feel is the heart of his argument in that chapter, which is that Naturalism is really self-defeating (and therefore false) because it's basically saying that our thoughts are just the product of random chemicals in our brain. If that's true, then we cannot really trust our thinking. We cannot really *reason*. Our inferences won't allow us to arrive at truths.
The alternative is Supernaturalism, which begins by saying that "reason is older than nature": For example, according to Christianity, in the beginning was the Word (Logos or Reason). Which means that prior to Nature, there was already reason...