Absurdity 1: Miracles

It seems to me that the primary objection of people who deny the authority of scripture is the fact that it records miracles or otherwise seemingly impossible events.

Mr. Darrow in particular cites the creation of woman, the tower of Babel, Balaam's talking donkey, the wise men's star, the resurrection of the dead, and many others. I'll go through a few of these to point out the logical flaws in his reasoning.

First, the resurrection of the dead: Paul makes it clear in 1 Cor 15 that if Christ has not been raised from the dead, we are still in our sins, unforgiven; therefore, I think that it would be reasonable to say that this is something Christians should take quite seriously! It is the cornerstone of our faith, and without it we are to be pitied above all other men (15:19). Additionally, it was a central theme of the preaching of the apostles during the earlier years of the church. It is THE primary reason the apostles gave to unbelievers so that they would believe in Jesus Christ and receive forgiveness of sins (read Acts).

So what reason does Mr. Darrow give for denying this real, literal, physical, historical, space-time event? He says it's impossible to believe that dead men can be raised to life if we use our senses. Presumably here is he employing the inductive method of obtaining knowledge. He views an event over and over again (death) with his senses and it always turns out the same way (they don't come back to life), so he concludes that it will always turn out the same way (no one can ever come back to life). But I have a question for Mr. Darrow, to see if it is really impossible to determine with our senses whether someone has risen (and therefore CAN rise!) from the dead.

If you watched your buddy get flogged, beaten, crucified (suffocated), and stabbed through the heart with a spear, is it possible to determine for certain from this sensory experience that he did in fact die? I would say yes it is! It doesn't take a genius to know when someone is dead. Especially after that kind of treatment. Is it possible then also to find his tomb empty some short time thereafter? I'd say yes as well! Why should that be impossible? Are humans inherently incapable of determining whether or not a body is present in a burial room? I think not. Third question, would it be possible to touch someone alive who you determined was this dead, and see their scars? I'd say that is also not logically impossible with respect to sensory perception. Let's say Jesus did rise from the dead; does this mean that it's impossible to determine that he is alive with your senses? This seems foolish to me. The disciples were invited to touch him, watch him eat, listen to him teach them. If you did this, could you not reasonably conclude that this man was indeed alive? I think you could, and there is no good reason to believe otherwise.

So why would anyone ever say that it's impossible to believe that someone rose from the dead if we use our senses?

He mentions Balaam's talking donkey, and takes for granted that this will seem absurd to his reader. Now I'm going to confess something to everyone. Talking animals are really weird. I don't think anybody would dispute this. I would also like to say that only two instances of this are recorded in God's Word. Two times! It's weird! But absurd? I am not convinced that this can be determined from a strictly agnostic worldview. What would he have to be assuming to say that miracles are absurd? He would have to assume naturalism - that is, that supernaturalism is false. God does not exist and is not available for performing miracles. Now, what does this sound like?

It sounds like atheism to me, not agnosticism! So here we have an agnostic who says the Bible is absurd, which he ultimately backs up with atheistic philosophy. This is very subtle, and the person participating in this juggle of worldviews may not even realize he is doing it. It needs to be pointed out graciously. I suppose my main point for this article would be: A person with no worldview of his own (agnosticism) has no rational grounds on which to say someone else's is absurd. Furthermore, a person WITH a worldview can at best say, "From the perspective of my own worldview, Christianity looks foolish." With this, I wholeheartedly agree.

Next: Addressing the (Alleged) Lack of Evidence