Henke 2022t

Lundahl (2022a), Lundahl (2022i) and the Pool Game Analogy in C.S. Lewis’ Miracles: All Fail to Demonstrate the Existence of the Supernatural

Kevin R. Henke

September 15, 2022

In Henke (2022a), I gave the following definition of a supernatural act or miracle:

“I define a supernatural act or “magic” as a feat that violates the laws of chemistry and/or physics.”

Now, Mr. Lundahl did not like this definition in Henke (2022a). In Lundahl (2022a), he references a section out of Lewis (1960, chapter 8,) to argue that miracles “add to” rather than violate the laws of nature.

“This was answered by C. S. Lewis in Miracles - a miracle is not a break away from natural physics, chemistry, or biology, but an addition to them.

A physicist - this is probably from chapter 8, "Miracles and the Laws of Nature" starting on p. 87 in the 2012 edition by William Collins, arguably reproducing C. S. Lewis' second, reworked, original edition - a physicist on a steamer is watching the pool balls roll on a table of pool. He can calculate the rolling period of the steamer to perfection (or simply detect it by a watch with split seconds), he can see the movements already ongoing, he can calculate how this will go on, very easily after some time - but he can't calculate whether someone will take up a queue and hit a ball with it. If someone does, the physicist's calculations have been broken, but the laws of movement haven't.”

In Henke (2022b), I replied to his comments:

“The pool (billiards) analogy from chapter 8 of Lewis (1960) and summarized by Lundahl (2022a) is totally ineffective in defending the existence of the supernatural. It only illustrates that a physicist would have difficulty making predictions about a pool game if a human (not a supernatural being) unexpectedly decided to hit one of the balls in the middle of the game. Although the conditions of the pool game might change, notice that Mr. Lundahl admits that no “laws of movement” were violated in this account. That’s because humans, and not God, demons, angels, or other supernatural agents, were playing in this game. When humans play pool, we’re stuck obeying the laws of physics. Now, if God exists, he, by definition, is not necessarily forced to obey natural laws. He supposedly created natural laws and if he can create natural laws, then supposedly he can make exceptions or undo them. God could play pool by either using his supernatural powers or he might simply restrict himself to using only natural laws. If he exists, he could do anything he wanted to. God could remove the effects of gravity from a pool ball and cause it to pass through the ceiling or allow the atoms of the ball to pass through the table, but humans can’t do these things.”

Instead of writing a thoughtful and coherent response to the above paragraph from Henke (2022b), Mr. Lundahl in Lundahl (2022i) breaks up the paragraph into a number of segments, gives often flippant, vague and inadequate comments on each one, and never demonstrates that Lewis (1960) with his pool analogy or anything else in that book ever provides suitable evidence that miracles are real. Furthermore, as discussed in Henke (2022d), I explain why the format in Lundahl (2022i) is so problematic.

Both C.S. Lewis and Mr. Lundahl are trying to stress that miracles would not violate the laws of nature, but “add” to them. But, is this the only way that God or another supernatural being could act? Until they can produce evidence that God and other supernatural beings actually exist, how do C.S. Lewis and Mr. Lundahl know what these supernatural beings could or could not do? Simply quoting the Bible, as Mr. Lundahl does in Lundahl (2022a) and elsewhere, is circular reasoning and doesn’t work (see Henke 2022ab). Lundahl (2022b) further claims that miracles can be demonstrated by metaphysics and history. This is wrong. I argue in Henke (2022b) that miracles can only be demonstrated under strict laboratory conditions (e.g., the dead cat experiment).

Now, because there is no evidence of the supernatural, what a hypothetical supernatural being might be able to do is only limited by people’s imaginations. Unfortunately, C.S. Lewis and Mr. Lundahl have limited imaginations because I have no problem thinking of situations where a supernatural being could violate the laws of nature and produce a miracle if they decide to do so, as I mentioned in Henke (2022b), where the pool ball could pass through the solid table. Again, I also argue that God and other supernatural beings, if they exist, could act in some cases without violating natural law, such as in a pool game. However, unless natural laws are violated, I would not consider the actions of those supernatural beings to be miracles. Here’s why… When C.S. Lewis and Lundahl (2022a) claim that miracles do not violate the laws of chemistry and physics, they are not only limiting their imaginations, but they are also preventing miracles from being detected and any entity from being identified as supernatural. If a “miracle” never violates the laws of nature, then how do we know that the act was done by a supernatural being? Could it be a magician’s trick rather than an act of demons as Mr. Lundahl might think? As I mention in Henke (2022b), how would Mr. Lundahl using the C.S. Lewis approach to miracles be able to distinguish God from a non-supernatural extraterrestrial being with abilities that are so far technologically advanced that its actions look like magic to us? We have no choice but to define a miracle as violating natural law to really be able to say that it’s not something natural or artificial.

C.S. Lewis also tried to argue that we cannot say that miracles can never occur. I agree, but he came at the problem completely from the wrong direction. I haven’t and I would never try to argue that miracles cannot happen and that supernatural beings cannot exist. C.S. Lewis and Mr. Lundahl have the burden of evidence to demonstrate that miracles can occur and that supernatural beings exist, and C.S. Lewis and Mr. Lundahl never did that. Until well-confirmed evidence of miracles and supernatural beings come forward, the only logical conclusion is to be skeptical of them. I have the same consistent policy on claims about Big Foot, Nessie, fairies, living dinosaurs in Africa, psychic powers, and other paranormal or unusual claims.

Reference:

Lewis, C.S. 1960. Miracles, 2^nd ed., printed 1974: Harper One: HarperCollinsPublishers, 294pp.