The 18th century thinker rDavid Hume criticized those who accept miracles in the New Testament with the argument that any argument from sensory evidence is stronger than hearsay argument not based on same level of sensory evidence. To paraphrase, he said that sensory evidence is stronger and therefore clearly more trustworthy than hearsay about miracles. It is a little odd to use such arguments against the New Testament. Paul noted that foolishness of God is greater than any human wisdom. And God uses weakness, foolishness (weakness of logic and thought) to accomplish his purposes and make known his strength. Some thinkers, such as one of my favorites, the American theologian and scientist Jeremy Belknap, played Hume's (and the American Deist Thomas Paine's) game, trying to conform the New Testament to standards of human science. Belknap published a book doing just this. But think of the Gospels itself. Jesus repeatedly challenges our basic ideas, received tradition, expectations, customs, and thoughts with his teaching, some of which could appear almost foolish. Clearly the Gospels cannot be read with logic and science but with feeling and intuition. And is this also not the way Elder Scripture, Natural Theology, must be read? At the same time, we are rational creatures. We do study, analyze, and think. Science and logic toward natural history is clearly justifiable. There has to be a balance—of faith and reason, credulity and incredulity, intuition and logic analysis, deduction and induction. The Gospels, Paul, the Old Testament, indeed any good book, even history, even science, has this duality. To assume it is one or the other, as Hume did, is wrong.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
April 2018
Categories |