The Other Side of Fundamentalism - James Orr's 'Science and the Christian Faith'

When people think of Fundamentalist Christians, they (I'm sorry to say) tend to think of closeminded, loudmouthed, arrogant people who wouldn't recognize valid evidence or a rational argument if it hit them upside the head.  Although in my experience there are definitely some of these, this, like all stereotypes, is a dangerous mischaracterization of the richness of viewpoints that exist among Fundamentalists.  Fundamentalist Christians are just like everyone else - they are eager to know the world, and they are prone to making mistakes.  

Last week I remarked on an article published in 1911 in The Fundamentals, a Protestant journal that would come to define Fundamentalist Christianity.  The author, who remained anonymous, joyfully bashed both evolution and those who would preach it, but he (or she) at times confused scientific controversy over the role of natural selection, with a scientific disavowal of evolution itself.  The article is certainly insightful, witty and quite well-written - there is nothing slack-jawed or unintelligent about it - but by posting it on this site I may have led you to believe that all Fundamentalists have been historically opposed to evolution.

Miraculous Stories - Can We Trust Them?

Imagine someone were to run into your classroom or workplace and shout out, ‘I just saw a dead man come back to life!’  Would you believe him?  Even if you believe in the possibility of miracles, would you trust his testimony?  In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume argues, quite powerfully, that miraculous stories can never be trusted.

Miracles - Real, or Delusions?

Are miracles possible?  They are certainly a common enough phenomenon, if you believe the reports of others.  People claim to have had visitations from angels, they see Mary’s face in pretty much everything, there are claims of faith healings and people rising from the dead.  Miracles are foundational to many religions but take an especially central place in Christianity, with the resurrection of Jesus.

Odds are none of us have experienced what we would consider a bona fide external miracle.  (At least, I have not).  Without such experience, though, with the only evidence of miracles being the reports of others, is there any rational reason for believing in the possibility of miracles?

No other thinker has had such an influential effect on the philosophy of miracles than David Hume.  Written in the 1700s, his arguments against the possibility of miracles and against the credibility of testimonies concerning miracles still reverberate with us today.  Here, I summarize his arguments against miracles, and suggest where I think Hume went wrong.  (You may need a Hume refresher - read Hume's Arguments in 10 Points)