Apologetics
Naturalistic Explanations
The fact that the Bible speaks of the miraculous is problematic for those who would hold naturalism to be true. In fact, this alone is reason enough for many to reject the Bible. They would reason something like this: 1. The Bible contains claims of miracles. 2. We know miracles do not happen. 3. Therefore, the Bible must not be true.
Yet, as has been previously discussed, miracles do not fall under the umbrella of science, but rather history. The fact that they are not occurring presently is not a problem, since the Bible itself indicates that such a time would come (1 Cor. 13). However, the miracle claims are historical claims, and they are open to normal, historical investigation.
Naturalists, of course, cannot admit to the possibility of miracles because, if they did, they would cease to be naturalists. However, they cannot properly deny historical events that are documented and testified to by eyewitnesses. So, many, instead of denying that "something happened," will instead seek to give an alternate explanation for the event. In other words, what appears to have been miraculous can be explained, they think, through naturalistic means.
For example, Thallus, a first century historian who was not a Christian, indicated that at the time coinciding with the death of Jesus, there was a period of darkness (cf. Luke 23:44-45). This was explained naturalistically as a solar eclipse. Of course, that does not explain the timing of the event, nor the other events occurring simultaneously.
But this brings us to an important point that needs to be made about naturalistic explanations. When people try to give such explanations, they are (unwittingly perhaps) testifying to the fact that something did indeed happen. Though Thallus gave a naturalistic explanation, his testimony is that there really was a period of darkness, which coincides with the time Jesus was on the cross. When one tries to explain the missing body from the tomb of Jesus in natural terms, he/she is actually acknowledging that the body really was missing, and that something needs to account for it. On and on the list could go. Just about every miracle has some kind of "naturalistic spin" put on it. But why? If one does not believe in God in the first place, why try to explain these things at all? Could it be that the evidence is just too strong to ignore?
Part of the problem is that natural explanations for the miraculous will invariably end up distorting or ignoring other facts. The divided waters of the Red Sea might be explained as just be a wind (and, of course, God did use the wind), but when other matters are factored in (such as why it happened at "just the right time" and why it closed up at "just the right time"), a naturalistic explanation ends up requiring more faith than just believing what the Bible says about it. This is true of other miracles as well. (Who believes the "swoon theory" is all that credible?).
So, when a natural explanation for an event is given by an unbeliever, I like to ask, does this mean he/she is acknowledging that the event occurred? Why else give an explanation for it? Yet if the event did occur, why not accept what the eyewitnesses said about it? Why not even accept what enemies of Jesus recognized about the events? The evidence was just too strong to ignore. And it still is.
Doy Moyer
August 2000