MIRACLES: A Significant Adaptation of Means

I'm editing a book of lectures on BASIC CHRISTIANITY delivered by Dr. Stan Walters over 50 years ago. Walters was an academic fellow from Yale and Oxford, a Biblical scholar and part-time archeologist who taught for years in Christian and secular universities. Imagine a Christian Indiana Jones.

The lectures are unique because they are based on the premise that Christianity is evidence based, not just faith alone. Walters believed that without factual, historical and logical evidence, Christianity is too easily discredited as the fanciful imagination of fanatics. Without reason and evidence, one could believe in anything, and there are many other fanciful religions and versions of Christianity that are not based on facts or logic.

Dr. Stan Walters lectures at Greenville College in 1968

His lectures so captured my imagination that while still in college I obtained permission to record an entire semester of his course on Basic Christianity from the college radio station (WGRN) where I was production manger.

 Little did I know it would be the last time he taught the course. (There's a chapter about Dr. Walters in my memoir, Growing Up Christian, and his thinking about the evidence in Christianity informed my web-series The Logical Case for Catholicism.) Recently, I was able to transfer the tapes to digital format and transcribe them. And with his permission, he lives not far from us, I'm now in the midst of editing the lectures and hopefully next year will release them as a book.

Today, I edited the last of three lectures on MIRACLES. They are astonishing, and so I wanted to share with you an excerpt from the conclusion. Here it is.

------- Start of lecture excerpt -------

Miracles - A Significant Adaptation of Means

The regularity of nature, what we call the laws of nature, is God doing the same thing in the same way, most of the time, day-after-day. God does this in order to provide a stable environment so we can develop character and responsibility. Without the stability of nature, if nature was really random, we could never plan what we were to do the next day and would too easily give up telling others what time we'd be over to help them, because time would be unpredictable.

We need to think of the universe and its laws as designed to run in a way to achieve God's purpose, of showing us love. Thus, the universe and its laws are the means to an end, where the end is God revealing his love to us by giving us a stable world in which to live and grow. But sometimes we need an extra dose of love, and so we are confronted with miracles, whether through answered prayer, or just an angel who swoops down and saves us from disaster. It is from these moments that Dr. Walters invokes Dr. Elton Trueblood's definition of a miracle as "a significant adaptation of means." That is, God adapted natural laws significantly in some way to help us. God significantly adapted the laws of the universe: the means to his end of loving us.

The point is, ordinarily the means that God uses to do things are the means we know about all the time. But, if he wishes, he may make a significant adaptation of means and then there occurs something which we're not accustomed, to which we do not find it possible to explain by ordinary cause and effect, and which we would call a miracle.

Now, this idea, that God controls, and manipulates the universe for his own purposes, leads to three implications for our life.
Three Implications

1. Things Don't Happen by Accident to the Christian

One of them is this. There is a sense in which things do not happen by accident.  When he was a university student at Oxford the late William Temple (1881-1944), whom some people consider the greatest Christian philosopher of the 20th century, wrote a letter home to his parents in which he discussed a particular examination that he had taken. Temple wrote that he'd done rather well on the exam, better it seems than he had expected to do. And he wrote, "I was going to blaspheme and say 'Lucky'."

Now, why should Temple say that "Lucky" is blasphemy?  Because lucky implies there isn't any pattern. There isn't any purpose. It is random that things just happen without being part of some overarching purpose. And the Christian cannot say that, ...not and believe in the God whom he meets in the Scriptures and in Jesus Christ. Because the God whom we meet in the Scriptures is in charge of things.

It is true that the universe operates according to patterns describable by us most of the time.  But from the Biblical point of view, God is somehow in these operations working out his eternal purposes. And to say "Lucky" would be to say there are some things that God wasn't in, they just happened. And that would be saying the Creator is not the Creator. He's only a part of this operation. And it would reduce the Creator to the level of the creature. We ought to take this more seriously. Things don't happen by accident to the Christian.

2. The Universe is Run by the Eternal Purpose of God

Secondly, there's an interesting implication, for me at least, in this about prayer. When I first began to see the ideas that I've been trying to develop for you in these periods, it made prayer much easier for me, because I saw that in praying what I really had to do was something like this:

Oh God, here is a particular need.  Will you use any means necessary to meet that need? You pick the means Lord. And you know what it's going to take to meet that need. Devise and use whatever means are necessary to meet that need.

I think it's helpful to our prayer life to see that the universe is run basically by the eternal purpose of God and not by a cast iron set of causes and effects.

3. Christians Need to be Open to the Novel and Unexpected

The third implication is that Christian people are required to have a very great openness to the novel and the unexpected. You don't know when it may suit God's purposes to vary things just a little. And therefore, the novel may occur. The resurrection of Christ was an extraordinary novelty for which any kind of meaningful precedent was almost totally lacking. And yet we think that it happened. God is never bound by precedent. And in your life and mine and in those communities of Christian persons which are nearly everywhere in this world, there ought to be great openness so that God may do what he wishes to do even if it is something just a little different than we're used to.

------- End of lecture excerpt -------

The Lesson in This Post

In a recent post I shared a picture of a large tree limb that had fallen on my wife's car. It destroyed the passenger door, the windshield and frame, an "A" pillar, and most notably the structural steel in the roof panel.  Pam had just acquired the car from her elderly father, and it was special, although it had modestly high mileage. And while it was in generally good shape with no rust (we live in Michigan where they use salt on the roads in winter), we had already put over $1,000 in repairs just in the last few weeks. She loved the car, but I was worried a bit about the future expense of keeping it up.

Unfortunately, AAA Auto Insurance had to "total" the car because the parts were no longer available and it could not be repaired. We were both devastated. We could not afford another car payment, and Pam needed the car for her ministry at church and several other families.

What was interesting about the event was where she had parked the car just minutes before the limb fell (during a wind storm). It was in our driveway, but about six feet further away from where she normally parked it. And that was because while doing some yard work I had temporarily placed something in her side of the garage preventing the car's entry. But, had she parked the car in her normal spot in the driveway, the limb would have missed the car entirely. The circumstances leading up to it, and the limb's falling on her car, were both novel and unexpected. But was it a miracle?

At first, we would never have called it that. But as time went on and as we prayed for wisdom, several things occurred to Pam's mind about the car and its demise. They were incidental things, but they related to two people she was always praying for. Were these people connected directly with the car? Not really. But the car being totaled gave Pam fresh ideas of how to pray for those individuals and how Pam's life and theirs were related. But what to do, we were in a quandary. We expected a settlement check form AAA, but it wouldn't be enough to get another car, and we were already cash strapped.

Then, not thinking of the unexpected, a few days later AAA made a cash settlement for the car in an amount that was far more than what we thought the car was worth. And with a small savings Pam had, it appears she will be just able to acquire a newer car, with fewer miles, that will allow her to continue her ministry in a less expensive manner. Much less, in fact. And, had she tried to trade in the car, she would not have gotten as much for it, and getting a newer car, with less miles, would have been out of the question. So, the limb falling oddly on the car was a blessing? Who would have guessed that?

Pam and I pray together each morning and evening, in addition to our private time of Bible reading and prayer. We try to keep our faith strong, but there are times, like this, that test us. Then, as this car and tree limb situation was unfolding, I was editing these chapters on miracles, and came to the section I've shared with you above. While we do not know the real reason why her car was totaled, the oddity of how it happened brings the implications noted above into focus for us.

1. Things don't happen by accident for the Christian.

2. The Universe is Run by the Eternal Purpose of God.

3. Christians Need to be Open to the Novel and Unexpected.

MONOGAMY, ONCE A GOOD IDEA, NOW RULED ILLEGAL

IT'S ABOUT GRAVITY

In a previous post the headline read: "Gravity, once a good idea, now ruled illegal."

I claimed that "gravity" and "marriage" were and are similarly defined by Natural Law. One reader took exception and said that "marriage" was an invention of man. I countered that the term "marriage" was indeed an invention of man, much like the term "gravity." But that the essence of both were scientifically defined by certain unalterable rules, which, if ignored, had undesirable consequences for the health and sustenance of the species.

In the previous post, I cited "unitive" and "procreative" as the two concepts enshrined in Catholic teaching that suggested where scientists should look for evidence of the natural law effect of a heterosexual couple's sexual union.

Gravity, Once Considered a Good Idea, Now Ruled Illegal

Gravity, perhaps, is Natural Law's most obvious witness. This essay suggests that the traditional concept of Marriage is a close second.

Traditional Marriage is best defined by Natural Law—the rules of the universe that describe unalterable reality. It is the ubiquitous presence of natural law's order found in the physical, psychological, and moral realms that defines some of the most astonishing attributes of God—the heavens declare the glory of God. That is, God is revealed in the quantifiable, visible, mathematical, supreme order of the universe and that such order is immutable.

Yet, some courts and lawmakers think they can mess with Nature. Yes, they can make any choice they want, but they have no choice over the consequences. Only Natural Law will determine the outcome. One such example of the Supreme Court's mistakes in this regard was 1857 Dred Scott Decision that concluded African Salves were property, not U.S. Citizens. Natural Law disagreed... and the consequence was the Civil War, ...which then led to the 14th Amendment.

But is "marriage," as the Catholic Church defines it, really capable of being defined and defended by Natural Law?

UNITIVE AND PROCREATIVE

An often-ignored principle of Catholicism is that its practice and purpose is to succinctly define Natural Law in its doctrines and practical teachings so the faithful can follow nature more easily and thus live more happily.

Thus, it's not surprising that what the Church says about marriage is vastly supported by medical and social science. But it takes some careful reading to see it. And, it would help society if our Bishops were more publicly vocal and assertive. The Church is called to be salt and light. But it is often lost its saltiness and its batteries seem dead when the dark invades. So, let me try to make a candle and light it...I've got some bees wax here somewhere.

Paragraph 2366 of the Catechism states:

The inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

In this sentence, the Church claims that marriage is defined uniquely by these two terms alone: (1) unitive and (2) procreative. Pundits might want to add that marriage is "between one man and one woman" or that marriage is a "permanent" relationship. But as we will come to understand, the terms unitive and procreative make such clarification redundant (although for the common communication the esoteric is often not enough and more wordy formulations are necessary.)

So, is there evidence from science and Natural Law that the concepts of a unitive relationship combined with a procreative relationship are possible for homosexual relationships, or are they reserved for heterosexual relationships?

ONE FLESH

A Unitive Relationship implies that the relationship creates "one flesh" through the congeal act. On the surface, this has one (1) meaning—the temporary physical union of the persons. While this is possible on the surface with male-on-male homosexual relationships, it is not possible with a lesbian relationship. Yet, with male-female unions it is always possible.

If we add the Procreative component, the unitive relationship of a male-female union has a second (2) and more significant meaning. For, only then can the "two "flesh" produce the "one flesh" of a baby. This is not the typical interpretation of the Mark 10 passage, below, but it is true.

For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. (Mark 10:6–8)
But there is yet another way that only a male and female can become one.

WHEN UNPROTECTED SEX IS GOOD SEX

Getting deeper into science, there is a third (3) meaning to unitive, which we discover goes far deeper than physical copulation, and is more subtle than having a baby...and it is only possible in heterosexual relationships.

Science has discovered that male semen plasma, apart from conveying nourishing sperm on their way to the female's eggs, contains a host of vitamins and nutrients that benefit the female by providing to the female's blood stream (a) antidepressants, (b) several mood-elevating compounds, (c) antigens that can help prevent breast cancer, and (d) agents that lower blood pressure helping to prevent preeclampsia conditions.

These discoveries came out of research that studied heterosexual vs. lesbian couples. Women who were in lesbian relationships, or women who used condoms, had a higher probability of depression and thoughts of suicide, higher blood pressure and a higher affinity for breast cancer.

Thus, unprotected sex, which allows semen plasma to be absorbed into the woman's blood stream becomes yet another layer of meaning to the concept of unitive as chemicals (not just sperm) from male are passed into the female.

Further, this passing of chemicals reinforces the procreative component of the definition of marriage by making the woman physically healthier, apart from producing a baby. Benefits that are absent in all homosexual unions.

There is more to consider in my next essay on the natural law and science surrounding monogamy. But, with only the information presented above, the legal attempts to redefine the natural law of marriage suggests that someday a hauteur will ask the courts to upend gravity. I can see the headline now: GRAVITY, ONCE CONSIDERED A GOOD IDEA, RULED ILLEGAL.

And, that's why I'm Catholic.

Stanley D. Williams, Ph.D.

Next Time: What Does Natural Law Say About Monogamy?

(SOURCES: Aside from the citations referenced in the text, this essay made liberal use of cited medical journal references found in Wikipedia's articles on marriage, semen and polygamy.)

Your Mother, or the Police

There's a line in Dr. Ray Guarendi's stand-up parent-comedy routine,  "You're a Better Parent Than YouThink" that fits the current spat of news about rioting and misbehaving children.

As a parent I guarantee that your child will be disciplined. If not by you (which is the preferable) then by his teacher, his coach, his employer, the police, or…and I fear this next one…his wife. (You don't wanna go there, trust me.)"

Toya Graham is the single-mom of six kids, who was videotaped hitting, swearing at, and chasing her much larger and perhaps stronger 16-year old boy dressed like a masked ISIS terrorist, off the streets of Baltimore after seeing him throwing rocks at police.  She commented later that her pastor was not going to be too happy with her for swearing like she did at her son. She was called a "hero" by some, and villainized by others for letting his behavior get as far as it did. But you saw the fearsome look on the face of her much taller son as he ran off the streets and back home. His life, we pray, will be saved from the fate of Freddie Gray who evidently had a tragic life even before his arrest and death.

This morning I read another brief news report about a mother in Georgia for calling police after her 10-year old boy who was being rude and disrespectful in school. After the boy refused to listen to his mom, she called the cops, and they pretended to arrest him. They put the young boy in handcuffs and sat him in the back of a police cruiser where they had a heart-to-heart talk.  The boy was terrified, but evidently it worked. After a few minutes they released him and he ran to his mother and hugged her. The next week the teacher at school said the boy's behavior had been turned around. The police supervisor didn't like the idea of his officers "pretending" to arrest anyone. But, the mother defended her actions. "It worked," she said. "He's a changed boy."

The unrest around the country over claims of police brutality, or the help of police to teach the young boy in Georgia a firm lesson, keep reminding me of Dr. Ray's funny line. But behind Dr. Ray's line, and the reality of the universe is something called Natural Law. 

Be sure, if you jump off a cliff you will fall. As human beings we may have the freedom to make any choice we want. But we have no choice over the consequence. The nature of reality and the laws that God has established in the universe will ultimately determine our fate. That is true of everything from lying, stealing, sexual immorality, and disrespecting just authorities. You can jump up in the air just so far before gravity will bring you back down to earth.

There's security in that. You can trust Natural Law to be just and fair. You can trust Natural Law to have your best interests in mine.

That's why I'm Catholic.

May the Lord Be With You.

Stanley D. Williams, Ph.D.

Editorial at Nineveh's Crossing.com

Catholics Love Gays

April 11, 2015

Let's get something straight. God loves homosexuals, just as he loves all other sinners, of which we are all to be numbered.

God wants the best for all of us, even those of us who commit murder, envy, adultery, and fornication in our hearts. He loves those who steal and even take his name in vain. He loves pedophiles and tyrants. God loves you, me, and all of us. God is love.

But when God looks down and sees one of his loved ones endangering his or her life through behavior that spits-in-the-eye of nature, and brings circumstances into their lives that will eventually bring emotional and physical conflict and sadness, ...he, God, tries his best to discourage the behavior. And being God's witnesses on Earth, Catholics, and other Christians follow his lead.

It's not hate that motivates Catholics and other Christians to discourage the gay lifestyle, it's love. We want them to be happy, and there is plenty of scientific and special revelation that indicates what homosexuality and promiscuity leads to danger and perhaps premature death.

If Catholics truly hated homosexuals, we would let them marry, have free reign over their lust and unsafe behavior, and let them suffer the consequences that nature brings upon them high risk. But we want to see them happy, so we encourage behavior that falls within what science observes will bring less sadness and more joy.

In the end, true religions establish rules based on their scientific and sociological observations of what brings death and what brings life. Some religions do it better than others. The religion that ultimately leads people to a safe, joyous, and fulfilled, happy life, is the one that best understands nature....and God.

That's why I'm Catholic.

May the Lord Be With You. And, may You love his laws, like King David did.

Editorial from Nineveh's Crossing.

Atheism and Miracles: Is It Really About Evidence?

Miracle, Fluke, or Not Enough Data?

My friend, Dave Armstrong maintains a very active apologetics blog, called Biblical Evidence for Catholicism (which covers much more wide-ranging material than its title suggests). In one of his articles, Dave reports on an interesting occasion when he was the guest of 16 atheists who tried to poke holes in his Catholic thinking. I guess it was a friendly dialogue, and not a typical angry debate, as such occasions seem often to be.

[Addendum from 7-17-23: Dave has now written over 4,300 articles and 53 books: the latest of which, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible (Catholic Answers Press: March 15, 2023, 271 pages), addresses many biblical "miracles" and proposes possible and perhaps plausible natural explanations for many. On his Philosophy, Science, & Christianity web page he also has several articles about miracles]

The center of their discussion was whether or not miracles have occurred in the past or can occur.  In particular they were discussing the Resurrection of Christ. This particular group, and one person in particular (DagoodS) found it difficult to discuss the plausibility of miracles because the group defined a miracle as an event that defied or broke the laws of nature.  Dave pointed out that unless the group could get off it's "no miracles allowed" mind-set, there was no chance to have an intellectual discussion regarding the possibility of miracles. That is, the firm bias of "miracles are impossible" prevents any intellectual investigation into the possibility of the same. It's like saying, "I choose not to believe in it, therefore it doesn't exist." My anti-Catholic children will say to me, "That's not what I believe" ... as if their ability to believe or not was the criteria for reality.

The Atheists' Beef with Miracles

DagoodS put his "beef" this way. I'm editing to pull together his salient comments:

As to naturalistic presupposition [regarding miracles]…I agree that is a difficulty for the [Christian] apologist to [objectively] discuss the Resurrection. Alas, it is part of human make-up. We all have biases. As a naturalist, I am going to look for a natural  explanation. As a theist, [the Christian would look] for a supernatural explanation.

Many apologists...appear to claim the evidence (for the Resurrection) is sufficient to ... convince a naturalist. In those situations, I try to explain why the evidence is not enough. Why we have legitimate (often un-addressed) concerns regarding the evidence claimed.

If I can interpret and expand for DagoodS (he can correct me):

Producing evidence in favor of miracles is not sufficient because the atheist will have legitimate concerns about the evidence. 

Of  course this is short hand, but is it the whole argument? Because it sounds like DagoodS is shutting the door before there's even a knock on it. It sounds like this:

Any evidence presented in favor of miracles would be illegitimate because the evidence is flawed...and we don't even have to test the evidence to know it's flawed.

Such is the character of prejudice and fallacious argumentation. The fallacy has two names in material logic: (1) Ignoring the counter evidence, and (2) Denying the counter evidence. Under the color of logic the atheist claims "I don't see it, therefore it must not exist."

Ah, there is the rub...and the solution.

Miracles and the Laws of Nature
The problem atheists have with miracles should be the same problem Christians have with miracles. The common definition is fallacious: An event that breaks one or more laws of nature.  Such a definition, if not pure arrogance, is a fallacious assumption. What follows in an explanation.

Let's start with one of Dave's favorite priests, Fr. John Hardon. In his Modern Catholic Dictionary (Eternal Life Publishing, 1999) he has this definition:

MIRACLE. A sensibly perceptible effect, surpassing at least the powers of visible nature, produced by God to witness to some truth or testify to someone's sanctity.

I don't expect atheists or skeptics to accept Fr. Hardon's definition. I provide it here for Catholics to help them see the fallacious nature of their definition. To understand why the common miracle definition is wrong, let's parse Fr. Hardon's definition. Note he says, a miracle is:

• Something that is "sensibly perceived." That is, a miracle is not a vision or a dream that one or only a few see. A miracle is something that is commonly witnessed by everyone present at the time.
• Is an "effect" - that means it is physical, not an "affect" which refers to the psychological state of a person.
• The event or effect surpasses our understanding of the powers of visible  nature. That is the miracle APPEARS VISIBLY to contradict the laws of nature.
• It is produced by God (not mankind)
• It has a higher moral purpose. It's not just eye-candy or entertainment.

The important concept in Fr. Hardon's definition that applies to the current issue, is that the miracle visually appears to break the laws of nature.

Knowledge

As physicist (in part) and a Christian (hopefully, not in part) I have never believed that miracles need to break a natural law. The concept of "breaking a natural law" is that a contradiction has occurred. Natural Laws, however, are understood to be immutable and not exist in contradiction with one another -- something cannot be both TRUE and FALSE. Science would look at an apparent contradiction in nature and call it a paradox. That is, we just don't have all the knowledge about what is happening. Until we have most of the data we might call the event a phenomenon...and theologians and people of faith might call the phenomenon a miracle.  I submit, therefore, that miracles, which happen in the natural world, are paradoxes, not contradictions.  (BTW: The term contradiction is used in logic, for propositional statements that, to our thinking, are both true and false at the same time. )

In other words, when we "SEE" a contradiction we are mistaken, it is a paradox. The laws of nature cannot be broken, but they can be misunderstood.

Worlds in Collision

My thinking about miracles is informed by Worlds in Collision, a controversial book by Immanuel Velikovsky, in part, about the Plagues of Egypt (Moses). Velikovsky hypotheses that the miracles of the plagues were actually the natural result of Earth's collision with the tail of a comet. He explains them all as paradoxes. That does not make them less miraculous.

Another example is the fictional (but logical) account of the protagonist in "A Yankee in King Arthur's Court" who knows a solar eclipse is about to occur and uses it to his advantage. But such an event seems like a miracle or magic to the less knowledgeable characters around him.

Then there are the scientific and mathematical discovers of physical dimensions beyond the space-time continuum that can be described as 3 three physical (space) dimensions (length, height, and depth) and the thing we call the dimension of time, although we can only perceive a dot along the timeline, and not a full linear dimension as we do a ruled line on a piece of paper.  We cannot directly perceive the ten dimensions of space, but String Theory suggests they exists for certain mathematical and scientific observations to be true. Take for instance the spectrum's red-shift observations of deep space objects that indicate the objects are moving away from us a tremendous speed.  That movement is not in the three dimensions of space as we perceive it, but is on the surface of a 4th-space-dimension that is ever expanding. We see the effect but we can't see the dimension.

The existence of this 4th-space-dimension easily explains how Christ can seemingly appear to walk through a wall in the Upper Room, or how the Apostles and Christ can be appear to be transported instantly from one place to another. Or how the Red Sea is apparently parted. In all of these instances the laws of the natural universe are not broken, but rather we are allowed to physically experience what is always there. It's as if I go from bright sunlight into a dark room. For a while I can see nothing, until my eyes adjust, and then I see everything that has always been there. It's not a miracle. Things do not suddenly appear out of nothing.

All such "miracles" do violate our current understanding of Newtonian three-dimensions of space and time, but they obviously don't need to violate the laws of the universe when completely understood.

Monkeys and Witchcraft

This throws a monkey wrench into the atheist's arguments about needing "legitimate" evidence to "unanswered questions." In effect the atheist is demanding (or claiming) omniscience of the universe of knowledge. He is claiming to be, ironically, God. He is either claiming to know all or is expecting God to provide all knowledge. But that is something he will never have (unless he are "lucky" enough to get to heaven). Arrogance that he is important enough to have such knowledge cuts him off from God, who demands that we trust him for what our minds are too small to understand. "Now we see through a glass darkly..." Their illogical demand to be "god-like" in terms of knowledge (either now or at sometime in the future) cuts them off from the revelations that only faith and inform them about.

Did you see the "typo?" It wasn't. That last "and" was to be a "can". (See what mistakes and knowledge can impart?) Something does not make sense (like my last sentence) until new data is provided (it's a "can")  suddenly makes sense.  All human history is filled with such examples, especially in the history of science. What mankind thought was witchcraft of the 18th century is today "modern medicine" or "medical miracles."

Thus, the atheist, by his claim of of omniscience (there IS no God), and by his demand, "I need to know all to believe,"  errors on two fronts.  If he's honest, he "knows" he is not perfect, and that he is fully capable of making a typo.

Science Assumes Order

This leads "naturally" to the role of Christian Faith, without which few scientific discoveries would have been possible. Faith is irrevocably tied to scientific discovery because science assumes there is a natural order to be discovered. That is, science has faith that the universe is ordered and is not random or chaotic.  That order fulfills a mystical purpose is the scientist's assumption. That supposition allows science to use syllogisms to construct hypotheses, and then use logic to test them. The correct syllogisms lead to a constructive universe, not a destructive one. Without faith in a higher entity that designed and maintains the order, there is no purpose of the universe, and no hypotheses that can be tested.

Atheists are Logical Cowards

But we are sidetracked by all this talk of the need for evidence. What is really going on is this: Atheists hide behind the color of logic and evidence for fear of confronting the moral code of a just and gracious God. Atheism is a cowardly way to avoid natural law -- the natural moral code -- of the Creator. It's really not about evidence. Thus, the atheist isn't saying, "There are no miracles." or "There is no god," as if he was omniscient on that point. But he can say, and he has full right to it:  "There is no God -- Whom I will obey." Ah! Now that's evidence that makes logical sense.

Other References

C.S. Lewis is his book Miracles uses an argument similar to this, but different enough to be interesting. His premise is that due to humanity's lack of knowledge about the universe, natural laws should be perceived as laws about the way mater and time should normally interact, given our limited perspective of reality. But once new information or some new stimuli is put into the system of nature, natural law takes over and different (unnatural or supernatural) consequences result. Science is nothing more than the observation of nature and the construction of laws about what is observed. So, say we have a tank of fish, and we study them in this isolated situation and make up rules about their behavior. But one day we see something that is not "natural" in the fishes's world. That unnatural behavior, or supernatural behavior, may be the consequence of a new input to the system, and, after that new input, natural law takes over and we see the natural consequence. Thus, when Mary is impregnated by the Holy Spirit we have a new input into a natural environment...and Mary gives birth, according to natural law, nine months later.

Lewis makes the point I do above. No natural law is ever broken. Natural laws respond consistently to stimuli around them. What we see, which we call a miracle, is actually just a response of nature to a stimuli we have never seen before.