There is an idea in academic circles that our understanding of events relates to what we experience. Therefore, a possible event in the past that is not similar to what we have experienced is not accepted as accurate. This is called "the principle of analogy". These people would say that since they have not experienced miracles, they could not have occured in the past. When they studying historical accounts like those of Jesus, they reject them because they include descriptions of events that are supernatural.
This argument has some serious flaws. Using their logic a person who lived in the jungle all his life and never saw snow would have to reject stories of white flakes falling from the sky as described by a visitor from a colder climate. In the realm of science for many years no one had ever seen anything that was a particle with wavelike properties. Now, however scientists have had to accept the research that shows that light has both those qualities. So we can see that we need to base our views on the evidence even if there is no analogy of a smiliar experience in our lives.
Very good points here. With the logic some use to say there can't be a God we could try to use the same logic to say that nothing we can't see with the human eye doesn't exist, which is obviously not true. But, like it says in the book, they didn't always know that.
ReplyDeleteSo, they should be able to see that their own logic really doesn't make sense and can't be used as supposed evidence that there is no God. As Paul says in Romans 1:20 God has made Himself known by what He has made and it should be plain to everyone.