Return to Contents
Machen, J. Gresham. Background. J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937) was born in Baltimore and graduated with a degree in classics from Johns Hopkins University. He studied at Princeton Theological Seminary under B. B. *Warfield and R. D. Wilson. He also studied at Princeton University and as a fellow in Germany at Marburg and Gottingen. In 1906, Machen became an instructor in New Testament at Princeton Seminary.
Christianity and Culture. In 1912, Machen gave an address, “Christianity and Culture,” which set a theme for his career. He identified the problem in the Christian church as the relation between knowledge and piety. There were three approaches to this relationship, he said. Liberal Protestants subordinated the gospel to science and disregarded the supernatural. Fundamentalists preserved the supernatural but rejected science. Machen’s solution was to blend the pursuit of knowledge with religion.
By 1914, Machen was a full professor of New Testament at Princeton. After World War I, the Northern Presbyterian Church and Princeton Seminary both underwent a fundamental shift in theology, from historical Christianity and traditional Calvinism to a liberal or modernist following of German theological trends. In the ensuing battle, the denomination and seminary split. By 1929, Machen, Oswald T. Allis, Cornelius *Van Til, and Robert Dick Wilson, along with twenty students, left the seminary. Under Machen, these men established Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia.
In 1933, to counter the increasing liberalism in the Presbyterian Church, USA, Machen founded the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions. This board tested and commissioned orthodox missionaries and gave conservative churches an alternative to supporting liberals sent out by their own denomination. The General Assembly demanded that Machen leave the board. He refused and was tried for violating his ordination vows. Without being given the opportunity to defend his actions, he was suspended from the ministry by New Brunswick Presbytery in Trenton, New Jersey. He, along with others, was expelled from the PCUSA in 1936.
His Writings. While he rejected the label of “fundamentalist” and some of the theological emphases traditionally adopted by the fundamentalist movement, Machen was the intellectual leader of that movement during the 1920s. His scholarship and professional work were respected even by his opponents. One of his most helpful contributions for generations of students was his New Testament Greek for Beginners (1924). Of theological importance was his classic defense The Virgin Birth of Christ (1930). This collectionof lectures given at Columbia Theological Seminary argued that the virgin birth was not a late addition to Christianity. Other significant defenses of intellectually strong faith were The Origin of Paul’s Religion (1921), Christianity and Liberalism (1923), What Is Faith? (1927), The Christian Faith in the Modern World (1938), and The Christian View of Man (1937).
Fervent, Thoughtful Apologetic. Machen’s apologetic is closely aligned with the work of Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, A. A. Hodge, Caspar Wistar Hodge, and Geerhardus Vos. As the work of these men, Machen’s philosophy was rooted in Thomas *Reid and Scottish *realism He believed that reason, which relied upon and dealt with facts, was essential for faith. He followed the classic pattern of notitia (cognitive knowledge), assensus (feeling), that leads to fiducia (faith). Machen pointed out that reason does not prove faith This, he believed, was the fundamental error of liberalism (Lewis and Demarest, 374). Machen was ever cautious to put Christian experience in its proper context: “Christian experience is rightly used when it confirms the documentary evidence. But it can never produce a substitute for the documentary evidence. . . . Christian experience is rightly used when it helps to convince us that the events narrated in the New Testament actually did occur, but it can never enable us to be Christians, whether the events occurred or not” (Christianity and Liberalism, 72).
Mac hen’s starting point for apologetics was human consciousness, which relied upon logical analysis, deduction, and common sense. He did not elaborate ontheistic proofs; nonetheless, he relied upon traditional arguments. Machen went so far as to delay his ordination until he could satisfactorily answer Immanuel *Kant’s objections. He affirmed, “The very basis of the religion of Jesus was a triumphant belief in the real existence of a personal God. And without that belief no type of religion can rightly appeal to Jesus today. Jesus was a theist, and a rational theism is at the basis of Christianity. . . . [It] may be that the belief in a personal God is the result of a primitive revelation, and that the theistic proofs are only the logical confirmation of what was originally arrived at by a different means. At any rate, the logical confirmation of the belief in God is a vital concern to the Christian” (ibid., 59-60).
Followingthe old Princetonian tradition, Machen believed the Bible in its original writings (autographs) to be plenarily inspired, in that God’s Word was mediated through the lives and personalities of the writers and the genre of literature through which they wrote. Thus, historical narrative is not judged with the same standards as poetry. Scripture is infallibly God’s truth and is without error, but it is not mechanically dictated (see Bible, Evidence for). “In all its parts,” said Machen, Scripture is “the very word of God, completely true in what it says regarding matters of fact and completely authoritative in its commands” (Christian Faith in the Modern World, 2, 37). He affirmed, “Only the autographs of the Biblical books, in other words—the books as they came from the pen of the sacred writers, and not any of the copies of those autographs which we now possess— were produced with that supernatural impulsion and guidance of the Holy Spirit which we call inspiration” (ibid., 39).
Machen defended miraculous acts in Scripture (see Miracles, Arguments Against), especially those of Christ, by defining a supernatural event as what “takes place by the immediate, as distinguished from the mediate, power of God” (Christianity and Liberalism, 99). This, he points out, presupposes the existence of a personal God and the existence of a real order of nature. Thus, miracles are supernaturally dependently joined to *theism His book on The Virgin Birth is still a classic, as is his work on The Origin of Paul ,s Religion.
In defense of New Testament miracles (see Miracles in the Bible), Machen pointed out the mistake of isolating miracles from the rest of the New Testament. It is a mistake to discuss the resurrection of Jesus as though that which had to be proved was simply the resurrection of a first-century man in Palestine (ibid., 104). Rather, the resurrection is supported by the historical uniqueness of Christ in his person and claims, and the “adequate occasion” or purpose for the miracle that can be detected (ibid., 1, 104). The faith demonstrated by the early church was the most convincing argument for the resurrection (What Is Christianity? 6, 99). Machen further supports biblical miracles by pointing out the illegitimate naturalistic tendencies of the liberal church in rejecting them
W. ElweU, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.
--, Handbook of Evangelical Theologians.
D. G. Hart, 'The Princeton Mind in the Modem World and the Common Sense of J. Gresham Machen.” G. Lewis and B. Demarest, Challenges to Inerrancy.
J. G. Machen, Christian Faith in the Modern World.
--, Christianity and Liberalism.
--, The Christian View of Man.
--, The Origin of Paul's Religion.
--, The Virgin Birth of Christ.
--, What Is Christianity?
--, What Is Faith?
G. M. Marsden, " J. Gresham Machen, History and Truth.”
C. A. Russell, "J. Gresham Machen, Scholarly Fundamentalist.”
N. B. Stonehouse, J. Gresham Machen.
C. I. K. Story, "J. Gresham Machen: Apologist andExegete.”
Magdalen Manuscript. See New Testament Manuscripts.
Maimonides. Moses, son of Maimon (1135-1204), latinized his name into Maimonides. He left his native Cordova, Spain, in the wake of the Muslim invasion and went to North Africa and eventually Egypt, where he died in Cairo. Though known for his legal doctrine, “Rabbi Moses,” as the scholastics called him, became the most celebrated Jewish philosopher of the Middle Ages.
In his Guide for the Perplexed, he addressed the semi-intellectual Jewish thinkers who were in a state of mental confusion because they believed the principles of Greek philosophy contradicted their religious faith. The book was for those who hesitated between conflicting claims of philosophy and religion. Maimonides believed one could have full knowledge of Greek philosophy without giving up the observance of the commandments. Unfortunately, the reconciliation was usually in favor of an allegorical interpretation at the expense of a literal understanding of Scripture.
In addition to his Jewish faith, especially stressing the oneness and ineffability of God,
Maimonides was heavily influenced by Alfarabi, *Aristotle, *Averroes, *Philo, *Plato, and *Plotinus. The result was his own unique synthesis of these philosophers, with preference to Plato over Aristotle and heavy influence from Plotinus. Maimonides influenced *Thomas Aquinas and other scholastic philosophers, and also the modern rationalist Benedict *Spinoza.
Philosophy. Following his Jewish training, Maimonides believed God was one. He also held that God’s existence was demonstrable but that his essence was unknowable. He offered proofs for God’s existence used by the later scholastics, such as God as First Cause, First Mover, and Necessary Being (three of Aquinas’s five proofs for God). Unlike the Greeks, he believed God was the efficient, as well as the formal and final, cause of the world.
Greek philosophers argued for the eternality of the world, but Maimonides found these arguments inconclusive because they overlooked the omnipotence of God, who can freely create a universe of whatever duration he wishes. Aquinas followed this line of reasoning.
Following Plotinus, Maimonides held that all knowledge of God is negative. Anything positive refers only to God’s actions, not to his nature, which is essentially unknowable.
The Bible reveals one positive divine name, YHWH. The “tetragrammaton” name means “absolute existence.” God is a pure and necessary existence. All creatures are contingent. Their existence is only an “accident” added to their essence.
Evaluation. There are many positive contributions in Maimonides’s views. From the perspective of classical theism and apologetics (see Classical Apologetics), his stress on the nature of God, creation, and the proofs for God’s existence are commendable.
Of concern to Christians is Maimonides’s negative theology, which allows no positive analogies (see Analogy, Principle of). Also, his tendency to allegorize away parts of Scripture not reconcilable with prevailing Platonic philosophy was unnecessary and unacceptable.
S. Baron, ed., Essays on Maimonides.
Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed.
A. Maurer, Medieval Philosophy, chap. 8.
S. Pines, "A History of Maimonides.”
H. A. Wolfson, "Maimonides on Negative Attributes.”
Manichaeism. See Dualism. Martyr, Justin. See Justin Martyr.
Marx, Karl Karl Marx (1818-83) was one of the most influential of all modern atheists (see Atheism). His German-Jewish family was converted to Lutheranism when he was six. He was influenced heavily by the idealism of G. W. F. *Hegel (1770-1831), under whom he studied, and he adopted the atheism of fellow student Ludwig *Feuerbach (1804-72). After some radical political activity, which led to his expulsion from France (1845), he joined Friedrich Engels to produce The Communist Manifesto (1848). With the economic support of Engels’s prosperous textile business, Marx spent years of research in the British Museum producing Das Kapital (1867).
God and Religion. Even as a college student, Marx was a militant atheist who believed that the “criticism of religion is the foundation of all criticism” For this criticism Marx drew heavily on the radical young Hegelian named Ludwig *Feuerbach. Engels spoke of “the influence which Feuerbach, more than any other post-Hegelian philosopher, had upon us” (On Religion, 214). He triumphantly spoke of Feuerbach’s Essence of Christianity, which “with one blow . . . pulverized [religion] ... in that without circumlocution it placed materialism on the throne again” (ibid., 224). Marx drew three principles from Feuerbach.
First, “man is the highest essence for man” (ibid., 50). This means there is a categorical imperative to overthrow anything—especially religion—that debases humanity. Second, “man makes religion; religion does not make man” (ibid., 41). Religion is the self-consciousness of the human being who feels lost without some identification with a “God.” Third, religion is “the fantastic reflection in men’s minds of those external forces which control their daily life, a reflection in which the terrestrial forces assume the form of supernatural forces” (ibid., 147). God is a projection of human imagination. God did not make the human being in his image; the human being has made a god in his image (see Freud, Sigmund).
Marx’s *atheism, however, went well beyond that of Feuerbach. Marx agreed with the materialists that “matter is not a product of mind, but mind itself is merely the highest product of matter”
(ibid., 231). Marx objected that Feuerbach did not follow the implications of his ideas into the social domain, for “he by no means wishes to abolish religion; he wants to perfect it” (ibid., 237). “Feuerbach,” reasoned Marx, “does not see that the ‘religious sentiment’ is itself a social product” (ibid., 71). Hence, “he does not grasp the significance of‘revolutionary,’ of‘practical-critical,’ activity” (ibid., 69). In the words of Marxism’s slogan, “Religion is the opiate of the people”
(ibid., 35). People take the drug of religion “because this world is not adequate to assure man of his complete accomplishment and integrated development, [so] he compensates himself with the image of another, more perfect world” (ibid., 36).
Evaluation. Marx also might have applied his own thoughts when he said, “Union with Christ bestows inner exaltation, consolation in suffering, calm assurance, and a heart which is open to love of mankind, to all that is noble, to all that is great, not out of ambition, not through the desire for fame, but only because of Christ” (written by Marx as a teenager between August 10 and 16, 1835).
Marx’s own father feared it was the desire for fame that transformed Karl’s Christian conscience into a demonic desire. In March 1837, he admonished his ambitious son, saying, “At times I cannot rid myself of ideas which arouse in me sad forebodings and fear when I am struck as if by lightning by the thought: is your heart in accord with your head, your talents? Has it room for the earthly but gentler sentiments which in this vale of sorrow are so essentially consoling for a man of feeling? And since that heart is obviously animated and governed by a demon not granted to all men, is that demon heavenly or Faustian? ” (Selected Writings, emphasis added).
K. Blockmuehl, The Challenge of Marxism.
N. L. Geisler. Is Man the Measure? chap. 5.
R. N. C. Hunt, The Theory and Practice of Communism.
D. Lyon, Karl Marx.
K. Marx, Das Kcipitcd.
--, Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy.
K. Marx and F. Engels, On Religion.
Materialism. Materialism believes that all is matter or reducible to it. Pantheism, by contrast, holds that all is mind or ideas arising from it. Theists (see Theism) hold that Mind produced matter, and materialists that matter produced mind (see Atheism). In rigid materialism, “mind” does not really exist, only matter. According to soft materialism, or epiphenomenalism, mind exists but is dependent on matter the way a shadow of a tree depends on the tree.
Thomas Hobbes defined matter as “the world (I mean not the earth only, that denominates the lovers of it ‘worldly men,’ but the universe, that is, the whole mass of all things that are). [The world] is corporeal, that is to say, body; and hath the dimensions of magnitude, namely, length, breadth, and depth: also every part of body is likewise body, and hath the like dimensions; and consequently every part of the universe is body, and that which is not body is no part of the universe: and because the universe is all, that which is no part of it is nothing, and consequently nowhere” (Hobbes, 269).
Major Proponents. Modern materialists are heirs of ancient atomists (see Atomism)) such as Luecippus and Democraitus. Modern materialists follow in the trail of Thomas Hobbes, Pierre Sassendi, Denis Diderot, Julien de Mettrie, Heinrich d’Holach, and Karl *Marx. A form of materialism was embraced by some logical positivists such as Rudolf Carnap.
Basic Tenets. All materialists hold several basic beliefs in common (such as, everything is made of matter [energy]). Most materialists share other beliefs, such as humans are not immortal (see Immortality).
Matter Is All There Is. As Carl *Sagan put it, the cosmos is all that was, is, or ever will be. Everything is matter or reducible to it and dependent on it. If matter were to cease to exist, nothing would remain.
Matter Is Eternal. Most materialists believe matter has always been. Or, as one atheist put it, if matter came to be, it came into existence from nothing and by nothing (Kenny, 66; see Creation, Views of). The material universe is self-sustaining and self-generating. It is probably eternal, but if it came to be, then it came to be on its own without outside help. Isaac Asimov speculated that the probability is equally good that nothing came from nothing or that something came out of nothing. As luck would have it, something emerged (Asimov, 148). So matter is eternal, or else it came from nothing spontaneously.
Traditional materialists believed there were innumerable indestructible little hard pellets of reality called atoms (see Atomism). With the splitting of the atom and the emergence of Albert *Einstein’s E=MC2 (energy = mass χ speed of light squared), materialists now speak of the indestructibility of energy. They appeal to the first law of thermodynamics, claiming that “energy can neither be created nor destroyed.” Energy does not pass out of existence; it simply takes on new forms. Even at death, all the elements of our being are reabsorbed by the environment and reused. The process goes on forever (see Thermodynamics, Laws of).
Response to Argument for Materialism. The Nature of Self-Consciousness. Materialists argue that in order for there to be more than matter, the mind must consciously survive death. But the mind cannot function without the brain. Therefore, when the brain dies, consciousness ceases at the same time. However, this argument assumes that consciousness is a physical function, that “mind” is a function of matter. Mind is only a process within the brain. There is no proof for such an assumption.
Also unwarranted is the assumption that, because the mind and brain function together, they must be identical. A corollary assumption is that I am nothing but my brain. This is reductionist fallacy. Things that go together are not necessarily the same, any more than ideas expressed by these words are the same as the words themselves. Mind and brain could interact without being the same.
Dependence of Consciousness. In a modified form of materialism, epiphenominalism, the mind is not identical to the brain, but it is dependent on the physical brain, the way a shadow is dependent on a tree. This again assumes without proof that the mind is dependent on the brain. Certain mental functions can be explained in physical ways, but that does not mean they are dependent on physical processes. If there is a spiritual, as well as a physical, dimension to reality, the mind shows every sign of being able to function in either. Neurobiology is an empirical science, but these scientists freely admit that they have not come close to isolating the “I.” They can quantify mind-brain interactions, but there has been no success in learning the qualities of emotional or self response.
Access to the World. Materialists insist that the mind or self gains access to the world through the brain. Death destroys the brain, so death closes that door. The brain is certainly one way of access, but we cannot know if it is the only way of access to this world. It may or may not be. More to the point is that there may be another world, or even multiple dimensions, with wholly different kinds of access. And there may be ways to be conscious other than through interaction with the physical world. If there are spiritual beings, God and angels, and the evidence is that there are (see God, Evidence for), they are certainly conscious without a physical body gateway to the world. The
possibility of this spiritual dimension, of course, is what the materialist wants to avoid admitting, but there is no reason to do so.
The Necessity of Embodiment. Materialists reason that no person can survive without a body, and death destroys the body. So it destroys personhood. This begs the question by defining “person” in an arbitrary way that is unwarranted by our knowledge. We do not have the information that death destroys personhood for the reasons already stated. At best, we can say that death severs one dimension of consciousness—this-world consciousness. We can still be self-conscious, God-conscious, and conscious of another world.
Evaluation. Since materialists hold many beliefs in common with other atheists and agnostics, these beliefs are discussed in their respective articles. Their anti supernatural ism (see Miracle) is without philosophical grounds. Likewise, their acceptance of evolution (see Evolution; Evolution, Biological; Evolution, Cosmic) is without scientific justification.
Materialist arguments are self-defeating. “Nothing but” statements assume “more than” knowledge. How could I know I am nothing more than my brain unless I was more than it? I cannot analyze my brain in a test tube unless I am outside the test tube.
At the heart of materialism is the rejection of the existence of mind or spirit as a separate entity that survives the dissolution of matter. Mind, rather, is really matter, or at least dependent on matter.
Strict Materialism Is Self-defeating. The pure materialist view is clearly self-defeating, for materialists use reason for their arguments, but the existence of reason cannot be explained on a purely materialistic basis (see Lewis, Miracles, chap. 3). Neither can they condemn other views for having no rational basis when there is no basis for reason in irrational matter. Indeed, if materialism is correct, then there is no reason that a lunatic’s or drug addict’s view should not be as valued as the materialist’s own thoughts.
Further, the materialist theory is not made up of matter. That is, the theory about matter has no matter in it. The idea that all is made of molecules does not itself consist of molecules. For the thought about all matter must itself stand over and above matter. If the thought about matter is part of matter, then it cannot be a thought about all matter, since being a part of matter, it cannot transcend itself to make a pronouncement about all matter.
Mind (or its thought) can only transcend matter if it is more than matter. If it is more than matter, then matter is not all that exists. Whatever is material is limited to a region of space and time. If it moves, it moves in space and time. But the mind is not so limited. It roams the universe without leaving the room Even the materialist speaks of personal thoughts. But if strict materialism were correct, there could be no discrete thoughts. They would be a mere stream of electrons or some other material particle. Only a self-conscious being can truly make thoughts. Materialists want people to agree with their doctrine and accept their views. However, this is not possible if the views are correct. If consciousness is merely the result of a flow of electrons, persons are material processes, not free human beings.
What is more, all cannot be reduced to matter. There is more than matter. There are values (we ought to pursue). But matter or nature is what is (the descriptive), and values are what ought to be (prescriptive). So the existence of values (which even materialists have) denies pure materialism
Modified Materialism Is Self-defeating. Some materialists admit that mind is more than matter but deny that mind can exist independent of matter. They insist that mind is more than matter the way the whole is more than the sum of its parts. And yet the whole ceases to exist when the parts do. For instance, a whole automobile engine is something more than all its individual parts spread over the floor of the garage. Nonetheless, when the parts are destroyed, the “whole” engine is destroyed too.
Likewise, a mind is more than matter, but it is dependent on matter and ceases to exist when man’s material parts dissolve.
Although this materialistic argument is less apparently self-defeating than the first one, it is nonetheless equally wrong. It affirms that mind is ultimately dependent on matter. But the statement “mind is dependent on matter” does not claim to depend for its truth upon matter. In fact, it claims to be a truth about all mind and matter. But no truth about all matter can be dependent for its truth upon matter. One cannot stand outside all matter to make an affirmation about all matter and yet simultaneously claim he is really standing inside matter, being dependent upon it. If my mind is completely dependent on matter, then it can’t make statements from a vantage point beyond matter. And if its statements are not from a standpoint independent of matter, then they are not really statements about all matter. For one must step beyond something to see it all. The whole cannot be seen from within. It claims to have transcendent knowledge with only an immanent basis of operation.
Mind Transcends Matter. While materialists attempt to reduce everything to matter rather than mind, it would appear that in an epistemological sense at least, just the opposite is true. For whatever analysis I make of matter, there is always an “I” that stands outside the object of my analysis. Indeed, even when I analyze myself, there is an “I” that transcends the “me.” I can never capture my transcendental “I” (ego). I can only catch it, as it were, out of “the corner of my eye.” Even if I attempt to put my “I” in the test tube of analysis, it becomes a “me” at which the elusive “I” is looking. There is always more than “me”; there is the “I” that is not merely “me.” Contrary to materialism, then, everything is reducible to (i.e., ultimately dependent on) the “I.”
Arguments That Mind Exists Apart from Matter. Mind is prior to and independent of matter. This is made evident by several arguments. The first is that matter is not eternal and that it took a Mind to produce it.
Matter Is Not Eternal. There is strong evidence for what scientists have come to call the big bang origin of the universe (see Big Bang Theory), showing that matter had a beginning. The *kalam cosmological argument demonstrates that the material universe has a cause. But the cause of all matter cannot itself be matter; hence, something more than matter exists. As Karl Marx put it, either matter produced mind, or mind produced matter. Since matter was produced, Mind must have produced it.
An Intelligent Designer. Another fact is that there is a genetic code (DNA) found in all living things. It has its own alphabet, its own language, and its own symbols used to convey the information. But this is not possible unless there is a Mind behind the code. For there is no meaning without a meaner (mind) to mean it. This Mind is not material since it is behind the material being used to regulate life. Symbols are only used by minds to symbolize something. But if there is a Mind behind matter, then everything is not material.
The Law Giver Was Immaterial. Another way to demonstrate that all is not matter is known as the *moral argument for God. It can be phrased:
1. There is an objective moral law (see Morality, Absolute Nature of).
2. The moral law is prescriptive, not descriptive.
3. What is prescriptive is not part of the descriptive material world.
4. So there is an immaterial objective reality. More than matter exists (Lewis, Mere Christianity, 17-19).
Conclusion. Many of the arguments for materialism beg the question by assuming what is to be
proved, namely, that all is matter or reducible to it. Indeed, the central argument is self-defeating. For the attempt to deny that there is a reality beyond the material implies that a nonmaterial reality, such as the mind, exists. Materialism is an untenable position. The theory of a mind that all is matter is not itself a material thing. It is a thought about all material things. And the thought about material things is not itself a material thing.
I. Asimov, The Beginning and the End.
N. L. Geisler and R. M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask.
T. Hobbes, Leviathan.
A. Kenny, The Five Ways.
P. Kurtz, ed., Humanist Manifestos I and II.
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity.
---, Miracles.
J. P. Moreland and G. R. Habermas, Immortality.
C. Sagan, Cosmos.
Metaphysics. Metaphysics (lit. “beyond the physical”) is the study of being or reality. It is used interchangeably with ontology (Gk. ontos, “being,” and logos, “word about”). It is the discipline in philosophy that answers such questions as: What is real? (see Realism). Is reality one or many? Is reality material or immaterial? (see Materialism). Is it natural (see Naturalism) or supernatural?
(see Miracles, Arguments Against). Another important metaphysical problem has to do with whether being is univocal or analogical (see Analogy, Principle of).
In the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition, metaphysics is defined as the study of being insofar as it is being. Physics is the study of being insofar as it is physical.
Mill, John Stuart. John Stuart Mill (1806-73) embraced a finite god (see Finite Godism) worldview, with a *logical positivism that took a strong antimetaphysical stand (see Ayer, A. J.). He is usually known as a pioneer in modern scientific thinking. He devised rules for inductive scientific reasoning (see Inductive Method) and was a fountainhead of ethical utilitarianism Mill elaborated the canons of inductive scientific thought first stated by Francis Bacon (1561-1626) in Novum Organum (1620).
Argument for God. Mill rejected the traditional *teleological argument as expounded by William *Paley. He reasoned that Paley’s argument is built on analogy, that similarity in effect implies similarity in cause. This kind of analogy weakens as dissimilarities become greater. Watches imply watchmakers only because, by previous experience, we know that watchmakers make watches. There is nothing intrinsic in the watch to demand a craftsman’s hand. In like manner, footprints imply human beings and dung implies animals because previous experience informs us that this connection is appropriate. It is not that there is intrinsic design in the remains. Therefore, Mill concluded, Paley’s argument is weak.
Mill went on to offer what he considered a stronger expression of the teleological argument, built on an inductive “method of agreement.” This argument was the weakest of Mill’s inductive methods, but he considered the teleological argument to be a strong form of this kind of induction. Mill began with the organic rather than the mechanical aspect of nature:
1. There is an amazing concurrence of diverse elements in the human eye.
2. It is not probable that random selection brought these elements together.
3. The method of agreement argues for a common cause of the eye.
4. The cause was a final (purposing) cause, not an efficient (producing) cause.
Mill said that biological evolution, if true, diminishes the strength of even this stronger form of the teleological argument. For much of what appears to be design is accounted for in evolution by the survival of the fittest (see Geisler and Corduan, Philosophy of Religion, 177-84).
Mill’s reasoning led him to posit a finite God, which he defined as:
A Being of great but limited power, how or by what limited we cannot even conjecture; of great, and perhaps unlimited intelligence, but perhaps, also, more narrowly limited than his power: who desires, and pays some regard to, the happiness of his creatures, but who seems to have other motives of action which he cares more for, and who can hardly be supposed to have created the universe for that purpose alone. (“Nature,” in Three Essays on Religion, 194; except where noted, subsequent quotations will be from this essay)
Such a description limits God in power and goodness. Mill claimed that we can infer from nature that God has benevolent feelings toward his creatures, “but to jump from this to the inference that his sole or chief purposes are those of benevolence, and that the single end and aim of creation was the happiness of his creatures, is not only not justified by any evidence but is a conclusion in opposition to such evidence as we have” (192).
Creation. The universe was not created out of nothing, according to Mill. “The indication given by such evidence as there is, points to the creation, not indeed of the universe, but of the present order of it by an Intelligent Mind, whose power over the materials was not absolute” (243). In fact, there is from nature no reason to suppose that either matter or force were made by the Being who put them together in the ways they now appear. It is unclear that he has power to alter any of the properties of matter. Matter and energy are, therefore, eternal. Out of them God constructed a world by working with the materials and properties at hand (178).
In positing a finite God and eternal matter, Mill followed *Plato into a theistic *dualism. Creation is not ex nihilo (out of nothing) or ex Deo (out of God). Rather, it is ex materia (out of preexisting matter; see Creation, Views of).
Ethics. Mill denied any deontological or rule-based ethic. He was a qualitative utilitarian believing that one should act so as to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people in the long run. Since we can’t always know that, we have a fund of experience based on past experience that can be our guide.
Miracles. Mill held that the finite god is the author of nature’s laws and could intervene in the affairs of humanity, though there is no evidence that he does. Mill agrees with David *Hume that “the testimony of experience against miracles is undeviating and indubitable” (221). Mill takes another route to reach Hume’s anti supernatural conclusion (see Miracle; Naturalism). Mill believed that an unusual occurrence, even if it defeats a well-established law, is merely discovery of another law, previously unknown (221).
Evaluation. Mill’s argument for a finite god fails (see Finite Godism). It is based on the problem of evil, which has been shown to be inadequate (see Evil, Problem of ). Mill makes a category mistake in arguing that God is not perfect because he kills in a way that would be murder among humans. God is Creator of life, and he has the right to take away what he gives (Deut. 32:39; Job 1:21). We did not create life; we do not have the right to take it. The gardener who is sovereign over the flowers and bushes in his or her own yard lacks the right to cut down those belonging to the neighbors. Those who own them are in control of them God owns all life. He can take it if he wants without failing any moral law.
Mill’s utilitarianism also is inadequate. As a form of relativism, it is subject to the criticisms against relativists (see Morality, Absolute Nature of). How can one know that everything is not absolute without an absolute standard by which to measure it? Further, to work properly, utilitarianism demands that finite creatures know what will bring the greatest good to the greatest number in the long run. We are seldom certain what will bring the greatest good even in the short run. Only an infinitely wise, good God could be a utilitarian. And Mill does not have such a God.
Sources
N. L. Geisler, Christian Ethics, chap. 4.
N. L. Geisler and W. Corduan, Philosophy of Religion.
J. S. Mill. A System of Logic.
--, Three Essays on Religion.
--, Utilitarianism.
Plato, Timaeus.
Miracle. Christianity is a supernatural religion. Miracles are essential to its very nature. Without them, there is no orthodox Christianity. Furthermore, Christianity claims to have unique miracles— those that confirm the truth claims of its prophets and of Christ (see Miracles, False). However, in the wake of Benedict *Spinoza and David *Hume, most modern thinkers have rejected miracles.
Definition. A miracle is a special act of God that interrupts the natural course of events. The Christian conception of the miraculous immediately depends on the existence of a theistic God (see Cosmological Argument; Moral Argument for God; Teleological Argument). If the theistic God exists, miracles are possible. If there is a God who can act, then there can be acts of God. The only way to show that miracles are impossible is to disprove the existence of God.
The above statement immediately calls for clarification: What are “special acts” of God? How are they known when they occur? There must be specific distinguishing characteristics of miracles before one can analyze events that possess these characteristics. Simply to say a miracle is a singularity is insufficient. Singularities occur in nature without obvious divine intervention.
Theists (see Theism) define miracles in either a weak sense or a strong sense. Following *Augustine, the weaker definition describes a miracle as “a portent [which] is not contrary to nature, but contrary to our knowledge of nature” (Augustine, 21.8).
Others, following *Thomas Aquinas, define a miracle in the strong sense of an event that is outside nature’s power, something only done through supernatural power. This latter, stronger sense is important to apologists. A miracle is a divine intervention, a supernatural exception to the regular course of the natural world. Atheist (see Atheism) Antony *Flew put it well: “A miracle is something which would never have happened had nature, as it were, been left to its own devices” (Flew, 346). Natural laws describe naturally caused regularities; a miracle is a supernaturally caused singularity.
To expand on this definition, we need some understanding of what is meant by natural law. Broadly, a natural law is a general description of the usual orderly way in which the world operates. It follows, then, that a miracle is an unusual, irregular, specific way in which God acts within the world.
Probability of Miracles. Whether we can know if miracles actually happened in history depends on answers to three questions:
1. Are miracles possible?
2. Are New Testament documents reliable?
3. Were the New Testament witnesses reliable?
An often-overlooked argument is that for the probability of miracles. It is true that philosophy (i.e., arguments for God’s existence) shows miracles are possible (see God, Evidence for), but only history reveals whether they are actual (see New Testament, Historicity of). But it is also true that, granting the existence of a theistic God, miracles are probable. This is so for two basic reasons.
First, a theistic God has the ability to perform miracles since he is all-powerful, or omnipotent. Second, he has the desire to perform miracles because he is all-knowing, or omniscient, and all-good or omnibenevolent. One who examines history to see whether God has performed any miracles already can know that God is the kind of God who would if he could, and he can.
Why would God perform miracles if he could? By nature and will he is the kind of God who desires to communicate with his creatures and do good for them. And a miracle by definition is an event that does this very thing. Miracles heal, restore, bring back life, communicate God’s will, vindicate his attributes, and many more things that are in accord with his nature. Such things befit the nature of the One performing them (the Creator and Redeemer) and the need of the one for whom they are performed (the creature). By analogy, what good earthly father who had the ability to rescue his drowning child would not do everything in his power to do so? And if he had all power, then we know in advance that his goodness would lead him to do so. How much more our heavenly Father?
So we know in advance of looking at the evidence for the actuality of miracles that if God exists they are not only possible but probable.
Further, if a miracle is an act of God to confirm the word of God through a messenger of God (see Miracles, Apologetic Value of), then it is reasonable that God would want to do miracles.
Through miracles, God confirms his prophets (Heb. 2:3-4). This is the way God confirmed Moses (Exod. 4) and Elijah (1 Kings 18). And this is the way he confirmed Jesus (John 3:2; Acts 2:22).
How better could God confirm to us his spokespersons? And it is a priori probably that an intelligent, personal, moral Creator would want to communicate in the most effective way with his creatures.
Reality of Miracles. While philosophy makes supernatural events possible and the nature of a theistic God shows they are probable, only history reveals whether they are actual. But “history” here includes both the history of the cosmos and the history of the human race.
Actuality of the Miraculous in Cosmic History. A fact seldom fully appreciated is that even before we look at human history, we can know that miraculous events are not only possible but actual. The very *cosmological argument, by which we know God exists, also proves that a supernatural event has occurred. For if the universe had a beginning and, therefore, a Beginner (see Big Bang Theory; Kalam Cosmological Argument), then God brought the universe into existence out of nothing (see Creation, Views of). But ex nihilo creation is the greatest supernatural event of all. If Jesus’s making much bread out of a little bread is a miracle, then how much more is making everything out of nothing? Turning water into wine pales in comparison with creating the first water molecules. So the surprising conclusion is that, if the Creator exists, then the miraculous is not only possible but actual. The history of the cosmos, then, reveals that the miraculous has occurred in making something out of nothing; making life out of nonlife; making the rational (mind) out of the nonrational (see Evolution and related articles). What greater miracles could occur in human history than are already known to have occurred in cosmic history?
The Miraculous in Human History. Contrary to the widely perceived misconception, if God exists, then we should come to human history with the expectation of the miraculous, not with a naturalistic bias against it. For, as we have seen, if the Creator exists, then miracles are not only possible and probable, but the miraculous has already occurred in cosmic history. God has already broken through supernaturally in the history of the cosmos and life leading up to human history. In view of this, the most reasonable expectation then is to ask not whether but where he has broken through in human history.
The reality of miracles in human history is based on the reliability of the New Testament documents (see New Testament Manuscripts) and the reliability of the New Testament witnesses (see New Testament, Historicity of; New Testament, Non-Christian Sources). Given the trustworthiness of their combined testimony, it is beyond reasonable dispute that the New Testament records numerous miraculous events.
Dimensions of Miracles. In the Bible’s pattern, a biblical miracle, at least one with apologetic value, has several dimensions.
First, miracles have an unusual character. It is an out-of-the-ordinary event in contrast to the regular pattern of events in the natural world. As a “wonder,” it attracts attention by its uniqueness. A burning bush that is not consumed, fire from heaven, and a person strolling on water are not normal occurrences. Hence, they draw the interest of observers.
Second, miracles have a theological dimension. A miracle is an act of God that presupposes a God who acts. The view that a God beyond the universe created it, controls it, and can interfere in it is *theism
Third, miracles have a moral dimension. They bring glory to God by manifesting his moral character. Miracles are visible acts that reflect the invisible nature of God. No true miracle, then, is evil, because God is good. Miracles by nature aim to produce and/or promote good.
Fourth, miracles have a doctrinal dimension. Miracles in the Bible are connected directly or indirectly with “truth claims” (see Miracles in the Bible). They are ways to tell a true prophet from a false prophet (Deut. 18:22). They confirm the truth of God through the servant of God (Heb. 2:3-4). Message and miracle go hand in hand.
Fifth, miracles have a teleological dimension. Unlike magic (see Miracles, Magic and), they are never performed to entertain (see Fuke 23:8). Miracles have the distinctive purpose to glorify the Creator and to provide evidence for people to believe by accrediting the message of God through the prophet of God.
Theistic Context for a Miracle. An essential feature of biblical miracles is their theistic context (see Theism). Only within a theistic worldview can a miracle be identified. When Moses came upon the burning bush (Exod. 3:1-6), he began to investigate it because of its unusual nature. The accompanying word from God told Moses that this event was not merely unusual but a miracle. If Moses reported to convinced atheists (see Atheism) what had happened at the burning bush, they would have been within their rights to doubt the story. In an atheistic universe, it makes no sense to speak about acts of God. A burning bush and a voice would seem to the nontheist no more miraculous than the voice from heaven did to those who took it to be thunder (John 12:29). But granting that God exists and something about his rational and moral nature, these defining characteristics give miracles their apologetic power.
Conclusion. We must know what we are looking for before we can recognize a miracle. First, miracles stand in contrast to nature, which is God’s regular and naturally predictable way of working in the world. Miracles are an unusual and humanly unpredictable way in which God sometimes intervenes in the events of the world. A miracle may look like any unusual occurrence, but it has a supernatural cause. It is performed with divine power, according to the divine mind, for a divine purpose, in order to authenticate a divine message or purpose.