Tim Keller on Miracles

In his book, “The Reason for God“, Tim Keller has a chapter entitled Science Has Disproved Christianity in which he addresses criticismsThe Reason For God of  Christianity based on the false conclusion that science has disproved God/Christianity. The first question Keller discusses is, “Aren’t miracles scientifically impossible?”

“It is one thing to say that science is only equipped to test for natural causes and cannot speak to any others. It is quite another to insist that science proves that no other causes could possibly exist. . . . There would be no experimental model for testing the statement: ‘No supernatural cause for any natural phenomenon is possible.’ It is therefore a philosophical presupposition and not a scientific finding.”

In other words, you cannot in one swing say that science only tests natural causes and in another conclude that this means no supernatural causes exist. It would be like taking a metal detector to the beach and stating that there are no non-metallic substances on the beach based solely on the fact that you are unable to detect them with your instrument.

2 thoughts on “Tim Keller on Miracles”

  1. Don, do you agree with Tim Keller’s “The Reason for God” in all that was presented in the book?

  2. Lyn, I must confess that I just skimmed the book.

    Keller is a deep thinker and I appreciated his willingness to present a ‘reasoned’ argument that the God of the Bible exists. He tackles some of the difficult issues for Christians to answer when challenged by those who do not accept the Bible.

    He covers such questions as: “How can a loving God allow suffering in the world?” “Why is Christianity so exclusive? “What about all those wars that have been fought in the name of God? “Hasn’t science disproved the Bible?” And many more like them.

    His arguments are somewhat intellectual in nature and rely on ‘reason” rather than internal Scriptural proofs which some may find disturbing. His audience is both believers and skeptics alike, what Keller calls a “divided culture”.

    I think, by enlarge, this is a useful book, although I would be hesitant to endorse it without a more thorough reading.

Comments are closed.