Though we often note the radical disparity between secularism and Christianity, that doesn’t stop many of us from tacitly assuming that our secular interlocutors will at least recognize the plausibility of our rational arguments for the faith. But they frequently don’t. Why? Is it because they’re less rational than they fancy themselves to be? Are they just stubborn? Is it because they don’t want there to be a god?
Though each of these questions might shed some light on the situation, I don’t think they go to the heart of the matter. Furthermore, I think they often serve as a pretext for dismissing our secular friend’s outlook, and patting ourselves on the back for having given it our best shot. (Sadly, I’m speaking from experience here.) I think a better question is: What am I missing? Why am I not being heard?
Consider the historical evidence for Jesus’s resurrection. Despite its illustrious track record with skeptics, many non-believers simply dismiss it out of hand. Why? It turns out that there’s a brilliant thinker behind the scenes, and we need to make his acquaintance.
The Scottish philosopher David Hume devoted an entire section of his seminal essay, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, to the subject of miracles. Unabashed in his ambitions, Hume’s stated aim was to provide an “everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion,” and to mount an argument against miracles that would prove “useful as long as the world endures.”[1]
Since the world is still enduring, it may prove useful for us to re-examine Hume’s thesis regarding miracles: “A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.”[2] Let’s temporarily bracket the question of whether this sentence is accurate or fair, and pause to admire its rhetorical finesse. Who would want to defend anything that constitutes a “violation of the laws of nature”? Who would want to argue against scientific evidence? What kind of person makes a habit of attacking the testimony of “unalterable experience”? More significantly, what sane person would want to trespass beyond the bounds of reason?
Continue reading Ravi Zacharias Ministry – Why Can’t Skeptics Hear My Arguments?
