MIRACLE REPORTS, MORAL PHILOSOPHY, AND CONTEMPORARY SCIENCE by Hendrik van der Breggen A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2004 © Hendrik van der Breggen, 2004

ii

DECLARATION & AUTHORIZATION I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. I authorize the University of Waterloo to lend this thesis to other institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research.

Hendrik van der Breggen I further authorize the University of Waterloo to reproduce this thesis by photocopying or by other means, in total or in part, at the request of other institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research.

Hendrik van der Breggen

iii

ABSTRACT Miracle Reports, Moral Philosophy, and Contemporary Science

In the case of miracle reports, David Hume famously argued that there is something about "the very nature of the fact" to which the testimony testifies which contains the seeds of the testimony's destruction as credible evidence. The Humean idea, still held by several important contemporary philosophers, is that the very concept of miracle has logical implications for the world, these implications (especially those arising from a miracle's law-violating nature) make a miracle extremely improbable, and so, at least for thinking people, reports of a miracle's occurrence are rendered unbelievable. Hume and apparently some of his contemporary disciples view this feature of miracle reports as an "everlasting check" against reasonable belief in reports of any miracle’ s occurrence.

At the risk of seeming unfair to Hume, but taking seriously Hume and company's apparent judgment that the Humean argument is at least a present day check on miracle reports, this dissertation transfers the heart of the Humean argument into the present and it makes a case for thinking that, today, the Humean argument backfires. In this dissertation a close conceptual look is taken of the "very nature" of the miraculous object of a miracle testimony, a very nature paradigmatically given to us in the reports of Jesus' (allegedly) miraculous resurrection and virgin birth; and then an examination occurs of the logical implications of this conceptual analysis in the context of what science tells us is reasonable to believe about the world at the beginning of the 21st century, and in the context of what some moral philosophizing allows us to reasonably believe as well. The result, this dissertation contends, is that, contrary to what Hume and company think, the concept of miracle contains the seeds not for weakening the credibility of a miracle testimony but for strengthening it.

The thesis of this dissertation is the following: On the specification of a miracle concept that is comprehensive enough to capture such paradigm cases as Jesus' allegedly miraculous resurrection and virgin birth (and which does not include a violation of a law of nature clause in its definition), certain features of this concept's metaphysical and moral implications—when examined in the context of some implied/predicted findings from contemporary science plus some implied/predicted discernments from moral philosophy—serve to enhance the plausibility of a hypothesis which employs the miracle concept to describe the operation of a theoretical causal entity or power to make sense of some facts which suggest such an operation.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Had I known at the beginning the amount of effort, time, money, hardship and heartache my family and I would invest in this dissertation, this dissertation would probably not have been started. Nevertheless, in retrospect, I strongly believe that the project has been worth it. Truly, sometimes it is better not to know what the future holds.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the following people who, over the years, have made a significant contribution to the completion of this project. (Of course, many others deserve mention too; to you I can only promise that you are appreciated.) Thanks go to:

▪Dr. Joseph Novak, thesis supervisor (Department of Philosophy, University of Waterloo). You have been a patient critic and a gracious academic guide. Thanks for persevering with me through this controversial dissertation. You have also become a wonderful family friend. We will never forget the huge chocolate "Incredible Hulk" you gave us as an Easter gift. It has brought a whole new dimension to the contemplation of Christ’ s resurrection. Mere chocolate bunnies will never be welcome in our house again!

▪Dr. William Abbott, departmental reader (Department of Philosophy, University of Waterloo). Your penetrating questions and comments have been truly helpful, adding clarity to my project; and your unfailing humour, wit, and personal warmth have always lifted my spirit.

▪Dr. Jan Narveson, departmental reader (Department of Philosophy, University of Waterloo). Your enthusiastic atheism plus your many objections have made me think very hard and very carefully, the result of which is, I am confident, a much stronger dissertation.

▪Dr. James Reimer, external-internal reader (Department of Religious Studies, Conrad Grebel College). Tackling this dissertation with such short notice was, I am sure, no easy task. Your assistance in this project is much appreciated.

▪Dr. Christine Overall, external-external reader (Department of Philosophy, Queen’ s University). You rekindled my (and my family’ s) confidence in philosophy as a truth-seeking endeavour which can be done with a genuine respect for those persons with whom one deeply disagrees. Thanks for modeling academic excellence coupled with humility and a caring heart.

▪Dr. Jeffrey Shallit, unofficial reader (School of Computer Science, University of Waterloo). Your enthusiastic skepticism and criticisms at the oral defence served to strengthen the dissertation.

▪The many scholars upon whose work this dissertation has built. I have tried my best to make explicit my debts to these men and women in the footnotes and in the bibliography. I am particularly grateful to Drs. William Lane Craig (Talbot School of Theology), Robert Larmer (University of New Brunswick), and Del Ratzsch (Calvin College). I am also grateful to C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien, for helping to bring my heart into the doing of philosophy—and the doing of life.

v

▪Ms. Laurie Strome, library staff (Dana Porter Library, University of Waterloo), neighbour and family friend. You have been a Ph.D. student's dream-neighbour. I am certain that no other doctoral student has gotten Inter-Library Loan books and documents delivered to his/her home! Also, your volunteer work in making our neighbourhood a better place to live has helped to provide an environment much more conducive to study and writing—in spite of the occasional S.W.A.T. team running by our kitchen windows!

▪Trinity Evangelical Missionary Church (Waterloo). Of this group of genuinely caring people, I am especially grateful to Pastor Craig and Patti Arbon (and Charlene, Ryan, and Ben), Pastor Michael and Janice Bells, Wayne and Karen Berry (and Matthew), Don and Marlene Brenneman (and Denise, Melanie, and Michelle), Roy Bretz, Dr. Wayne and Heather Brodland (and Ben and Blake), John and Jocelyn Delong (and Graham, Lauren, and William), Harold and Mariom Dyer, Frank and Pam Ewald (and Alisha and Katie), Jack and Heidi Flatt (and Kevin, Corry and Tyler), Pastor Harvey and Rene Fretz, Floyd and Karen Gadd (and Thomas, William, and Bethany), John and Betty Galbraith (and Matthew, Laura, Bethany, and David), Pastor David (“Indiana Jones”) and Fam Griffiths, Pastor Willis and Marion Hunking (and Garth), Jeanne Leis, John Littler, Howard and Doris Martin, Margaret Martin, Vernon and Darlene Mashinter (and Stephanie and Cassandra), Doug and Barb McDonald, Marilyn McIlroy, John and Gaby Montgomery (and Aaron, Heather, Hunter, and Trevor), Geoff and Sandra Moon (and Thomas and Meredith), Wayne and Ruth Morris (and Pamela, Karen, and Andrew), David and Nena Ogilvie, Edna (“Eddie”) Rehkopf, Pastor Jeremy and Stephanie Shuart (and Alyssa and Kaitlyn), Gisbert and Gudrun Snethlage, Weyburn and Debi Snider (and Amy and Rhoda), Doug and Doris Snoddy (and Timothy), Dr. Ken and Mary Stollery (and Anne and Clare), Rick and Marg Unger, Val West, Jim and Lynn Winter (and Edward, Diana, and Lindsey)—thank you for friendship, fine food, help with finances, and support in prayer. You have truly been a blessing to my family and to me. Also, a special thanks go to Geoff Moon and the Mechanics' Bible Study group (if ever you guys have an itch to fix another car, feel free to call us again). And thanks, too, to the Coffee Time crew, especially Harold and Mariom Dyer.

▪The faculty, staff and students at Emmanuel Bible College (Kitchener) and Heritage College & Seminary (Cambridge). You provided a place of employment which brought me much joy as a budding philosophy teacher. You also reminded me that to track truth—truth which leads to Him who is the greatest of all truths—academic work needs to be conjoined with humility, holiness, and love.

▪Michael Romahn (Cambridge). Thanks for being a great student, a terrific TA, a respected colleague, and a good friend.

▪Paul and Brenda Jeffrey (Calgary). Your ongoing friendship, your ability to model a true and loving family (complete with home school), plus your sacrificial support over the years continue to point us to Him who is both The Truth and Love Incarnate. Thanks so very, very much.

▪Dallas and Marj Miller (Medicine Hat). Your ongoing friendship, your love of learning, your home school, and your work with the Home School Legal Defence League are greatly appreciated.

▪Dr. Wasi Pramono and Ida Iriana (Windsor). Thanks for your precious friendship over the past 13 years. Thanks too for showing us that Muslims can become Christians—that Christ is Lord and Saviour for all.

vi

▪Tante Nettie and Oom Boeb and my Byleveld cousins (as well as cousin Pim Schotanus) and Byleveld-related families based in Ontario. You've made a strong case for the importance of extended family.

▪Walter and Helga Maier, Darrel and Winona Maier, Rod and LeAnne Maier, Laurel and Jay McLennan, Susan and Graeme Lauber, and the younger members of the Maier family (Alberta); plus Pieter and Hendrika van der Breggen, Pieter and Beverly van der Breggen, Frank van der Breggen and Sydney Sveinson, Lily and David Brown, Gloria Seeseequaisis, Abraham and Heather van der Breggen, and the younger members of the van der Breggen clan (Saskatchewan and Alberta). You've made a super-strong case for the importance of immediate family.

▪The remnant of my Windsor men's fellowship. Mike (“Moik”) Drake, Larry Masse, Al Gordon, and Stewart Cameron—thanks for your friendship and support through my master’ s studies and doctoral studies, especially the oral defence!

▪My Wild@Heart men's group (Kitchener-Waterloo). Steve McEvoy, David Lake, Christopher Strub, Kevin Pauls, Larry McLean, Kyle Wallace B thanks for being a source of strength and encouragement.

▪Finally—and most importantly—I thank my wife, Carla, and our two sons, Brahm and Thomas. Thanks for standing by me throughout this wonderful adventure called life, and thanks especially for climbing this latest mountain with me. Collectively, you are my Samwise Gamgee (although I think Carla is much more like Lady Galadriel and Lady Arwen). Without you, this dissertation, and I, would simply not be. I love you!

vii

DEDICATION To Jesus1 “ We love, because He first loved us.” 1 John 4:19 NASB

†

1Because there is considerable confusion today about who Jesus is, a footnote for the sake of

clarification is appropriate here. For the reader who desires to achieve a philosophically astute and historically informed understanding of Jesus’ identity and mission, this dissertation’ s author recommends Douglas Groothuis’ slim volume On Jesus, Wadsworth Philosophers Series (Toronto: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2003).

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Overview

Abstract iii Acknowledgments iv Dedication viii INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 1: MIRACLE 26 A reformulation of the concept, and a look for pointers to clues CHAPTER 2: MORAL PHILOSOPHY 91 The failure of moral relativism and the success of minimal intuitionism as clues for thinking that intelligent human beings have objective moral value CHAPTER 3: THE BIG BANG 167 A finding from contemporary science as a clue for thinking that there is a very powerful, transcendent cause which/who can produce physical stuff CHAPTER 4: INTIMATIONS OF DESIGN 212 Some findings from contemporary science as clues for thinking that there is a very powerful, transcendent, intelligent cause CHAPTER 5: A PLAUSIBILITY STRUCTURE FOR MIRACLES 305 The metaphysical implications of the reformulated miracle concept as background knowledge APPENDIX 385 A visual argument for intelligent causal agency BIBLIOGRAPHY 386

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS In Detail Abstract iii Acknowledgments iv Dedication vii

INTRODUCTION 1

I. Introductory Remarks & Thesis Statement 1

II. Chapter Overviews 16

A. Chapter One 16 B. Chapter Two 18 C. Chapter Three 20 D. Chapter Four 21 E. Chapter Five 22 F. Summary Overview 23

CHAPTER 1: MIRACLE 26 A reformulation of the concept, and a look for pointers to clues

I. Introductory Remarks 26

II. Subjective & Objective Senses 27

III. Philosophical Conceptions 34

A. Four Major Historical Thinkers 34 1. Augustine of Hippo 34 2. Thomas Aquinas 36 3. John Locke 40 4. David Hume 42

B. Major 20th-Century Thinkers 45 1. Richard Swinburne 45 2. Francis Beckwith 47 3. C. S. Lewis 49 4. Robert Larmer 50

IV. A Refined Philosophical Definition 53

A. Senses of Miracle Excluded (Bracketted) Here 53 B. The Sense of Miracle of Interest Here 55

x

C. Conditions Number One & Number Two 57 1. Conditions One & Two Considered (Introduction) 57 2. The Absurdity of the Violation Concept of Miracle 58

(a) Regularity Theory 61 (b) Nomic Necessity Theory 64 (c) Causal Dispositions Theory 68 (d) Sub-conclusion 69

3. The Non-absurdity of the Non-violation Concept of Miracle 70 (a) A Defence of the Non-violation Concept of Miracle 71 (b) Some Clarifications, to Emphasize the Pointers 77

D. Condition Number Three 79 1. Condition Number Three Considered 79 2. Some Clarifications, to Emphasize the Pointers 83

E. Condition Four 84 1. Condition Four Considered 84 2. Some Clarifications, to Emphasize the Pointers 86

V. Conclusion 89

CHAPTER 2: MORAL PHILOSOPHY 91 The failure of moral relativism and the success of minimal intuitionism as clues for thinking that intelligent human beings have objective moral value

I. Introductory Remarks 91

II. Moral Relativism 95

A. Normative Ethical Relativism 95 1. The Cultural Differences Argument 96

(a) Exposition 96 (b) Evaluation 99

(i) The main premise seems very much to be overstated 99 (ii) Even if the premise were true, it does not provide sufficient support for the conclusion 104 (iii) The conclusion is extremely problematic 107

(c) Sub-conclusion 115 B. Ethical Subjectivism 115

1. Assessing the Consequences of Ethical Subjectivism 117 2. Sub-Conclusion 120

III. A Case for Objective Moral Value: Minimal Intuitionism 120

A. Some Clarifications 121 B. An Appeal to Intuition 128

1. Moral Relativism (again), for starters 128 2. Utilitarianism 132 3. Contractarianism 134

xi

4. Survivalist/Evolutionary ethics 140 5. The Golden Rule 144 6. Kant’ s ethics 145 7. Ross's Intuitionism 146 8. Natural Law theory 147 9. Excursus on Contemporary Human Rights:

Vital Needs Human Rights theory 147 10. Sub-conclusion, and one more argument 153

C. Objections (and Replies) 154 1. Objection #1: Are feelings merely being projected? 154 2. Objection #2: What about Non-Minimal-Intuitionists? 156 3. Objection #3: Mysterious moral facts? 160 4. Objection #4: What about Intuitionism’ s problems generally? 162 5. Objection #5: Value is a function of size? 164 6. Sub-Conclusion 165

IV. Conclusion 165

CHAPTER 3: THE BIG BANG 167 A finding from contemporary science as a clue for thinking that there is a very powerful, physically transcendent cause which/who can produce physical stuff

I. Introductory Remarks 167

II. A Clarification Concerning Cause 171

III. Some Evidence for the Big Bang 172

IV. Appeal to the Intuitively Obvious 177

A. Exposition 177 B. Evaluation 179

1. Objection from Draper 181 2. Objection from Smith 182

V. The Argument from Empirical Facts 184

A. Exposition 184 B. Evaluation 185

1. Objection from Mackie 185 2. Objection from Smith (again) 188 3. Objection from Grünbaum 194 4. Objection from Draper (again) 196 5. Objection from Le Poidevin & Narveson 198 6. Possible Objection from Hume 199

C. Sub-Conclusion 203

xii

VI. An Objection from the Kantian a priori Principle of Causality 203

A. Exposition 203 B. Response 204

VII. Inferences about the Cause of the Universe's Beginning 208

VIII. Conclusion 210

CHAPTER 4: INTIMATIONS OF DESIGN 212 Some findings from contemporary science as clues for thinking that there is a very powerful, transcendent, intelligent cause

I. Introductory Remarks 212

II. Clarifying the Concept of Intelligent Design 214

III. Defending the Legitimacy of Intelligent Causes as Explanations 226

IV. Large-Scale Design: Fine-Tuning of the Universe 238

A. The Evidence for Fine-Tuning 238 B. Accounting for the Fine-Tuning 245

1. No explanation is needed? 245 2. A Case for Deep Mind Affinity 247 3. Dealing with the Competition 252

(a) Competing Interpretation #1: Chance/Brute Fact Theory 253 (b) Competing Interpretation #2: Fundamental Law Theory 254 (c) Competing Interpretation #3: Multiple Universe Theories 257

(i) Challenging multiple universe theories directly 257 (ii) Conceding multiple universe theories

for the sake of argument 263 4. Sub-Conclusion 268

V. Small-Scale Design: Molecular Machinery and Codes 268

A. Complex Biochemical Molecular Machines 268

1. The Evidence for Complex Biochemical Molecular Machines 268 2. Accounting for the Machines 270

(a) A Case for Deep Mind Affinity 270 (b) Dealing with the Competition 278

B. DNA's Language/Code 290 1. The Evidence for DNA's Language/Code 290 2. Accounting for DNA's Language/Code 291

(a) A Case for Deep Mind Affinity 291 (b) Dealing with the Competition 293

xiii

VI. A Cumulative Case 302

VII. Conclusion 304 CHAPTER 5: A PLAUSIBILITY STRUCTURE FOR MIRACLES 305 The metaphysical implications of the reformulated miracle concept as background knowledge

I. Introductory Remarks 305

II. Clarifying Plausibility 310

III. The Universe as a Miracle Writ Large 317

A. The Satisfaction of Conditions Two, Three and Four 317 B. The Satisfaction of Condition One 320 C. Sub-Conclusion 323

IV. Miracle Write Large Enhances the Plausibility of Miracles Writ Small 323

A. Some Facts Concerning Jesus' Alleged Resurrection 324 B. The Plausibility of Jesus' Alleged Resurrection 337 C. Objections (and Replies) 344

1. Fallacy of Division Objection 344 2. Question-Begging Objection 345 3. Mystery Objection 353 4. Troeltsch/Flew-type Objection(s) 360

(a) Troeltsch/Flew objection commits question-begging fallacy 361

(b) Troeltsch/Flew objection confuses crucial concepts 372

V. Summary Review & Upshot 375

VI. Conclusion 376

VII. Post Script on Philosophical Significance 377 APPENDIX 385 A visual argument for intelligent causal agency 385 BIBLIOGRAPHY 386

I. Books, journal articles, M.A. theses, Ph.D. theses, encyclopedia entries 386

II. Booklets, papers, magazines, online articles, videos, audio-tapes, etc. 418