Tags

, ,

A few weeks ago a comment by Ben the atheist skeptic caught my attention.

I had retweeted a quote by William Lane Craig about the importance of educating children in apologetics which Ben disagreed with. Kids, he said, need facts and reason not belief without evidence.

Really? No evidence at all? I couldn’t help myself, so I asked what he meant by “without evidence.” It turns out that Ben thought that evidence is only credible if it can and had been verified by science. Since there was no way to empirically evaluate the supernatural claims of the Bible then it couldn’t be considered credible.

In fact, no evidence for any supernatural event has ever been verified or even recorded in all of history, and since science has provided us with all the information we know about the world, anything outside of that is basically imaginary.

You’re probably thinking that this guy is stacking the deck against the credibility of miracle evidence, but his conclusions are the logical result of a growing philosophical movement known as scientism.

Scientism advocates that “…there are no truths apart from scientific truths.” It uses the same naturalistic research standards we had to memorize back in fifth-grade science but takes things one step further and says that all we know or can know about the world comes through science. The result is that no evidence apart from a testable, falsifiable, material explanation is considered credible.

You have to hand it to them, this method cleverly undercuts supernatural evidence not by denying that it exists but by saying that its existence is meaningless. However, there are some quick ways we can dispense with this challenge and it starts with the nature of credibility. . .

Read the article here:

Is the Evidence for Miracles Credible? – Salt and Grace