Showing posts with label skeptic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label skeptic. Show all posts

Friday, January 2, 2015

First Contact – Part 5 – Faith Healers



As I was growing up, there were a number of faith healers on television. They were always fascinating with their dramatics and head popping. I often wondered why there were so many sick people in the world given the number of people of faith capable of healing. I thought perhaps it had something to do with the lack of faith of the sick people. But upon examining the Bible, I realized that the healings mentioned there had more to do with the faith of the healer than the faith of the healee.

One faith healer in particular I used to watch on TV was Ernest Angley. Although I was always skeptical of the supposed healings that occurred at his hand, I found him to be flamboyant, yet intriguing and entertaining to watch. In October 1978, I heard that Angley was coming to a nearby civic center, and I knew I had to go. The program lasted about four hours and was filled with preaching, music, healing, and money collection. I was hoping to see what I would have considered a true miracle. This would consist of some type of healing that obviously violated the laws of nature such as a missing limb growing back instantly. I was not so fortunate. Most of the healings consisted of relieving nicotine addictions, reinstituting lost senses of smell, and reversing hearing loss. Absolutely nothing occurred during the four hours that came close to convincing me that Angley was God’s man of the hour. Further, when he began blessing boxes of trinkets before his assistants took to the audience to sell them, he lost any semblance of confidence I may have had in him. Still, I thought it would be interesting to talk to a person who was “healed” that day. About a month later I got my wish.

While at a funeral home during a visitation, my father introduced me to a man that he knew from years past and told me that he had been at the Angley service. Further, he had been on the stage and had had his hearing healed. No, he had not been deaf, just a bit hard of hearing. Since the healing, his hearing was much improved. Ever the skeptic, I began talking to him softly, thinking that if his hearing had not been healed he would have difficulty understanding me over the din of voices surrounding us. He heard everything I said. I was impressed, but not convinced. After all, I had never talked to the man before his healing, so there was no way for me to know the extent of his hearing loss. Perhaps he had gotten good at reading lips and knew what I was saying even though he could not hear me well.

In college, my friend Doug and I used to study and hang out together. At some point he got involved in a charismatic movement and converted to it from Catholicism. After college he got a job as an engineer just as I did, but later was led to work as a campus minister. The last time I saw Doug was at my wedding. While catching up on our lives he told me a story that I will never forget. One day at the campus ministry house a man showed up with some missing fingers due to an unfortunate run-in with a lawn mower. Doug and another person laid hands on the man and prayed for him. Then, right before their eyes, the man’s fingers grew back to full length.

I was astonished. What was I to make of this story? Was my good friend lying? Was he deluded? Had he been tricked? Or could it be that the healing actually happened just as he reported? Having not been present at the healing, there was no way for me to know for sure.

So, when it comes to faith healing, I remain a skeptic since I have never actually seen one. But, regardless of my skepticism, there do seem to be some credible stories that indicate healings do take place that cannot be explained naturally. But we must keep in mind that there is much we don’t know about nature, especially as it relates to the human body. Just as lightning at one time was thought to be from a supernatural source but now is known to be natural, perhaps one day those unexplainable healings will be explained.

I discuss this topic in more detail in my book God Is: Exploring the Nature of the Biblical God.

Sunday, October 13, 2013

Response to Joel Anderson's Critique of My Book, Part 1


My friend, Joel Anderson, has written his first blog post critiquing my book "God Is: Exploring the Nature of the Biblical God". For some reason, Google was not allowing me to post a response directly on his blog, so I am posting it here on mine.

Thanks, Joel. You are a man of your word, and I appreciate that.

I just wanted to make a few points of clarification.

Reason and logic are not a panacea. To live our lives 100% by R&L requires us to have all knowledge related to a topic and to be capable of flawless logic. In this temporal life, we rarely have the time to gather all relevant information and examine it thoroughly. We almost always make decisions based on partial knowledge. Faith bridges the gap. So R&L and faith are both needed to function properly in this life. That said, I believe the more we use R&L, the closer to the truth we will come.

When I say that we should examine the Bible through the filter of R&L, what I am saying is that if there are any obvious contradictions or irrationalities, it is not a good idea to just accept them by faith. It is best to say, "Well, the Bible has flaws in it" rather than say "I don't understand these seeming contradictions, but I know the Bible is 100% true, so I believe it anyway."

While some Christians believe the Bible should be accepted by faith alone, others actually believe in some combination of faith and reason. Once a Christian friend said to me, "People need to understand that the Bible should be believed by faith." I said, "If that's true, then why can't a person believe ANY religion by faith?" Knowing he was cornered he responded, "Well, I guess one needs to use faith and reason." I said, "Exactly! The problem is now how much of each?"

Also, notice that I didn't say in my book that only natural explanations should be accepted for reported supernatural events. I said if any natural explanations exist they are to be preferred. I fail to see how this is controversial. Even Christians do this when it comes to current day events. If someone says he killed another person because God commanded him to, even a Christian would not believe it without an abundance of proof. But when the Old Testament reports that God commanded the Israelites to kill people, they accept it without an abundance of proof. That is illogical to me. Be skeptical of both.

Since I have never experienced any supernatural events (something that defies the known laws of physics and nature) in my entire life, it seems reasonable to me that I should be skeptical of supernatural reports from others. After all, when many of these claims are actually investigated, a natural explanation is found. Other times we find that the person was fooled, exaggerating, or lying. But if the gospel stories are indeed true, then I am not nearly as skeptical as the apostles were of Jesus' resurrection. They disbelieved the testimony of their friends even though they had seen Jesus perform many miracles and had themselves performed them. They still had to see physical proof. I ask no more. (See http://www.rcfinch.com/philosophy/TheApostlesAreOurExample.pdf)

Finally, I am a skeptic, but more accurately I call myself a theistic leaning agnostic. That means that I don't know for sure if God exists, but I tend to believe he does. But based on all the evidence I have encountered along my space-time continuum path, I do not believe supernatural events occur. It doesn't mean they don't, it just means that I am very skeptical based on my experiences. The reason I mostly believe in a god (or creator), is that the Universe doesn't seem to be able to explain its own existence. That may change with more research, but currently it seems more knowledge just leads to more questions. What I don't believe is that God is any of the ones portrayed by the religions of the world. I believe the descriptions of the gods in religions are just how the writers of the holy books personally viewed God. A person in any of these religions would be just as skeptical as me about all other religions but their own. I am just skeptical of one more than they are.

If God exists, it appears he has given mankind the gift of reason to keep us from believing the unbelievable. Surely he would not want us to squander this ability.