Today we live in a skeptical world. People like Richard Dawkins sneer at the idea of miracles, especially those connected with Christianity. They envision a world of the future ruled by science and logic where there is no place for superstitions and silly stories of gods performing miraculous feats. But for the Christian, miracles are crucial — the birth , life and ministry, and death of Jesus of Nazareth is the heart of the message.

Can we today in the 21st century make a case for miracles? I believe we can. So I would like to give some reasons to believe in miracles and consider objections from skeptics.

Let’s start with the existence of God. Something like 98 percent of the world believes there is a God of some type. If you are talking to one of these people, your work is pretty well done if you are defending the idea of miracles. God exists in a supernatural world, so if miracles require divine intervention, we can readily argue that such a being is capable of performing them. If you’re dealing with someone who does not believe in God, there are many good ways to argue that he or she is wrong. For example, there are three major ways to prove your case — the cosmological argument (where did the universe come from?), the design argument (where did such exquisite design come from?), the existence of morality (how did morality come from atoms and molecules alone?).

The second line of evidence for the existence of miracles involves the New Testament, source of many miraculous stories. We can make a strong case for the reliability of the four gospels If we consider the existence of so many manuscripts, their existence so close to the original documents, and affirmation from hostile, non-Christian sources.

A third reason to believe in miracles has to do with science. That may seem surprising to some who believe science and Christianity are at war. But many recent discoveries of science actually suggest the possibility of a supernatural world. For example, physicists now believe that there were 10 dimensions at the Big Bang event. So at the beginning of the universe, extra dimensions (God’s realm) were there. In addition, we now know a great deal about DNA, the building blocks of life which are information-rich. Where did this language come from? Such information must come from a language maker.

Finally, we can argue for miracles based on experience. There are so many people who have witnessed miracles. A few weeks back I spoke to thirty people or so, and I asked them if they had either witnessed a miracle or trusted someone who told them about experiencing a miracle. Nearly one-third of the people responded positively.

So what is a key objection to miracles? The one I have run into the most says that miracles do not exist because they violate natural laws. But let’s consider that for one minute. Natural laws tell how things have usually happened; they do not predict the future. Consider a tennis ball that I have my hand. If I toss it up in the air, I may expect it to fall to the ground because I have seen it happen many times in the past. However, my wife may decide to grab the ball in mid air as it heads to the ground. Did she violate the law of gravity? No, she simply intervened just as God may intervene in our world.

There are other objections to miracles, but they do not seem especially strong. Some say miracles must not exist because most of the time they do not happen, so we are correct to be highly suspicious whenever a miracle is claimed. However, that is circular reasoning. Truth is not decided by a majority. Secondly, some say miracles are anti-science since science deals with what you can see, hear, etc. But that’s not true; miracles are not anti-science. They are beyond science. That’s why they’re called “supernatural.” There are others who argue that belief in miracles is bad because it would stop scientific research and investigation since no one could count on a rational universe. However, this is an orderly world which has natural laws dealing with regular events. Early scientists, many of whom were Christians, had faith that they could investigate the world because of its rational, orderly nature. Finally, there are those who refuse to believe in miracles simply because they have never seen one. But they are willing to believe in electrons even though they have never seen them either.

So there is a good case to be made for miracles. This blog has only been able to skim the surface. If you’d like more information, consider web sites such as str.org, equip.org, rzim.org, and answers.org. Some good books that deal with this include The Case for Faith, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Know Why You Believe, Skeptics Answered, When Skeptics Ask.

The following is a great summary of the problems with atheism. It suggests Christians and other theists can turn the tables on atheists who criticize the idea of God’s existence. The author is associated with Ravi Zacharias, a noted apologist (no relation, darn it). Next time you hear someone snidely attack theists, think about this article–what does he or she offer in theism’s place? What joy, what answers, what satisfaction is there in his position?

A Hearty Offense for the Atheistic Worldview

“The story I have to tell is the history of the next two centuries….For a long time now our whole civilization has been driving, with a tortured intensity growing from decade to decade, as if towards a catastrophe: restlessly, violently, tempestuously, like a mighty river desiring the end of its journey, without pausing to reflect, indeed fearful of reflection….Where we live, soon nobody will be able to exist.”(1)

Friedrich Nietzsche penned these words as he looked out onto a world devoid of God. His vision casts a bleak view of humanity and paints a frightening portrait of atheism. Nietzsche’s vision directly contrasts with the optimistic musings of a world without God penned by John Lennon:
Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace.(2)

In fact, the twentieth century told a far different tale than a life of present bliss and peace without God. Under atheistic regimes like Stalin in Russia or Pol Pot in Cambodia millions of people were slaughtered. Indeed, Nietzsche offers a healthy critique of the optimistic atheism of Lennon or the current popular British slogan that there is probably no God so we should stop worrying about it and enjoy life. In reality, there is great cause for worry if Nietzsche’s picture of a world without God is allowed full sway. That world is a very grim place filled with darkness, amorality, and despair.

Nietzsche’s vision in and of itself helps the theist formulate a healthy offensive to the typical onslaught of the atheist’s critique of religion. But it also provides an impetus to ask additional questions of those who see a positive view of atheism. If there is no God, for example, “the big questions” remain unanswered. Where did everything come from and why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there conscious, intelligent life on this planet and is there any meaning? Does human history lead anywhere or is it all in vain since death is merely the end? How does one come to understand good and evil, right and wrong? If these concepts are merely social constructions or human opinions, where does one look to determine morality?

Second, we not only have a crisis of morality, we have a crisis of meaning without belief in God. Without God, as Nietzsche articulated, meaning becomes nothing more than one’s own self-interests, pleasures, or tastes. Without God, the world is just stuff, thrown out into space and time, going nowhere, meaning nothing.

In addition, the problems of evil and suffering are in no way solved without God. Where does one find hope for the redemption of suffering and evil? Suffering is just as tragic, if not more so, without God because there is no hope of greater meaning. Without God it is neither redemptive nor redeemable, since no interventions in this life or reparations in an afterlife are possible. It might be true that there is no God to blame now, but neither is there a God to reach out to for strength, transcendent meaning, or comfort. There is only madness and confusion in the face of suffering and evil.

Moreover, without God or any sort of transcendent standard, how can atheists critique religions or religious people in the first place? Whose voice will be heard? Whose tastes or preferences will be honored? Without God, human tastes and opinions have no more weight than we give them, and who are we to give them meaning anyway? Societies might make things “illegal” and impose penalties or consequences, but human cultures have at various times legally or socially disapproved of everything from believing in God to believing the world revolves around the sun, from slavery to interracial marriage, from polygamy to monogamy. Human taste or opinion, societal laws or culture are hardly dependable arbiters of truth.

Finally, if there is no God, we don’t make sense. How does one explain human longings and desire for the transcendent? How do we explain human questions for meaning and purpose or inner thoughts of unfulfillment or emptiness? Why do humans hunger for the spiritual? How can we understand these questions if nothing exists beyond the material world? How do we get laws out of luck or predictable processes out of brute chance? If all that makes us different from animals is learning and altruism, why do the brutish still widely outnumber the wise in our world?
Nietzsche argued that the death of God would bring the upheaval of all morality and meaning and not its preservation. By raising these questions, Christians remind atheists who see the possibility of morality, meaning, and hope without God of their own prophetic heritage.

Margaret Manning is a member of the speaking and writing team at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Seattle, Washington.
(1) As quoted by Erich Heller in The Importance of Nietzsche (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 5.
(2) John Lennon, Imagine (September, 1971).
Author: Margaret Manning

Francis Collins is a big name in genetics. He was the head of the Human Genome Project, which mapped the human genome. A couple of years ago he wrote The Language of God, in which he set forth evidence for the existence of God. But he didn’t start out a Christian theist. He was an atheist, but one day someone shook up his world. The following is part of the story in his own words. You can see the rest in his book.

Perhaps the books that have changed my life most profoundly are a couple of books written by the Oxford scholar, C.S. Lewis. Not about science, actually, about faith. When I was 27, I was a medical intern, I was a pretty obnoxious atheist at that point. I began to realize that while in other parts of my life I didn’t make decisions without accumulating data and then looking at it, I hadn’t really done that when it came to this very important decision about, “Do you believe in God, or not?”

Because I had no real grounding for that, I discovered in college that I couldn’t debate those who said, faith was just a superstitious carry-over from the past and we’ve gone beyond that. I assumed that must be right, and I promoted that same view. And at 27, particularly as a medical intern, watching so many tumultuous things happening around me — young people dying for terrible reasons that shouldn’t have come to pass — you can’t avoid noticing some pretty scary questions that don’t seem to have answers. So I decide I’d better resolve this.

Somebody pointed me towards C.S. Lewis’s little book called Mere Christianity, which took all of my arguments that I thought were so airtight about the fact that faith is just irrational, and proved them totally full of holes. And in fact, turned them around the other way, and convinced me that the choice to believe is actually the most rational conclusion when you look at the evidence around you. That was a shocking sort of revelation, and one that I fought bitterly for about a year and then finally decided to accept. And that’s a book I go back to regularly, to dig through there for the truths that you find there, which are not truths that Lewis would claim he discovered for the first time, but he certainly expresses them in a very powerful way to somebody who is not willing to accept faith on an emotional basis, and I wasn’t.

Yesterday I came across an intriguing chapter in a book by Paul Copan (When God Goes to Starbucks). The author starts by quoting from Bertrand Russell, the famous atheist, who said Jesus got things wrong about the second coming: “For one thing, he certainly thought his second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time.” He is referring to Matthew 10:23 (“you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes”), Matthew 16:28 (“There are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom”), and Mark 14:62 (“you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven”). It seems obvious in these passages that the “coming” is expected within the near future of Jesus’ time.

The author, Paul Copan, presents a solution he calls a dual position — that Jesus “comes” up to God’s throne for vindication/judgment during “this generation” (in 70 A.D.) and that he will ultimately arrive (the “parousia”– his return to Earth) at an unknown time in the future. He says Jesus was speaking of two distinct events — answering two
questions — in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. Copan admits this approach may seem odd to today’s Christians, but he claims many biblical scholars hold to it.

Copan focuses on Matthew 24. Jesus tells his disciples that not one stone will be left upon another (verse 2), so his disciples want to know when these things will happen. But they go on to ask in verse 3 what will be the sign of his coming (parousia) and of the end of the age. Jesus knew the answer to the first question; he said the current generation would not pass away until all these things took place (verse 34). But he did not know the answer to the second question, instead saying no one but the Father would know (verse 36). Verses 4-35 discuss the events of the near future leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. while verses 36-51 speak of a more-distance future event – Jesus’ ultimate return.

A key verse is Matthew 24: 30. It says all will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. This may sound as if it’s talking about Jesus’ final return, but it is a reference to Daniel 7:13-14 where the Son of Man comes on the clouds to the Ancient of Days (a reference to God the Father) to receive authority from God as the confirmed king. So, this describes not a return to Earth but a coming to God. Several other places in the Bible refer to coming on clouds as a symbol of judgment (Psalm 18:12-14, Psalm 97: 2-3, Psalm 104:3, Isaiah 19:1, Nahum 1:3). Copan claims the majority of Bible interpreters see this verse referring to Jesus’ enthronement before God, not his parousia.

Many Christians interpret the list of events in Matthew 24 as signs occurring right before his return to Earth, but the author says they applied to events taking place before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (70 A.D.). They include false prophets, wars and rumors of wars, famines and earthquakes, persecutions — all of which were mentioned by Josephus, the famous Jewish historian of that time period. In verses 16-21 Jesus indicates the troubles will be confined to the area of Judea, demonstrating that this is not a world-wide phenomenon. In verse 27 Jesus says this is not the period of the parousia, which will be obvious and visible to all.

So the preliminary signs of Matthew 24: 15-25 indicate that the fall of Jerusalem is near. These signs also reveal that the end of national Israel will quickly follow. So the reference to “all these things” in verse 33 (the destruction of Jerusalem) will take place within “this generation” (verse 34) – Jesus’ own day. When Jesus says his generation would not pass away until all these things would take place, he’s speaking of the temple’s destruction in 70 A.D.

There is a shift that takes place in Matthew 24: 36-51. Now Jesus is talking about his unexpected parousia. It starts with “But of that day and hour.” Mark 13:32 begins the same way, indicating a contrast to the events of 66-70 A.D. At this point Jesus indicates many people will be unaware and unprepared when he returns.

Paul Copan spends nearly 30 pages in his book developing and clarifying this idea, so my summary here is obviously incomplete. This interpretation really knocked me out because I had heard a lot of tortured explanations dealing with Jesus’ claims about his generation seeing him come again. By the way, Copan has several other books that are also excellent and thought-provoking. Let me know if you have any questions or comments about this.