The question before us tonight was whether it could ever be rational to believe in miracles. To address this, we first needed to clarify what is meant by “miracle,” “rational,” and “could.” A miracle, as defined here, is an event that would not have happened if the natural world were left to itself—something that requires an explanation beyond the ordinary course of nature. Rationality, in this context, means following the evidence wherever it leads and seeking evidence when it is available, when the question is significant, and when the cost of error is high. The word “could” is important because to deny the possibility is to claim that no amount of evidence could ever make belief in a miracle rational—a position famously held by David Hume.

Hume’s argument is that the laws of nature are established by uniform experience and that human testimony is always weaker than this. Therefore, no testimony could ever make it rational to believe in a miracle. However, this way of pitting the laws of nature against testimony is mistaken. Science tells us how nature behaves when left to itself, but it cannot tell us whether nature has, in fact, been left to itself in any particular case. The question of whether an event is a miracle is not a scientific question, but an evidential one.

To responsibly evaluate miracle claims, we need a filter—a set of criteria to help us decide which claims are worth investigating. I proposed the acronym DOUBTS: Distant events, Opinions already established, Uncertain events, Belated reports, Trivial events, and Self-serving events. Claims that raise these red flags are not good places to start inquiry. On the other hand, claims that are public, attested by acts or monuments, open to the senses, and tied to the time of the alleged event (acronym PAST) are stronger candidates.

Applying these filters, most miracle claims from various traditions fall away, leaving only a handful of serious candidates—most notably, the resurrection of Jesus. The evidence for this event is unique in its proximity to the events, the transformation of witnesses, and the public nature of the claims. Rational belief in miracles is not about credulity or wishful thinking, but about following the evidence where it leads, even when it challenges our naturalistic assumptions.

Key Takeaways

• 1. Miracles Stand Out Against the Regularity of Nature A miracle is only recognizable as such because there is a settled, regular order of nature. The very possibility of identifying a miracle depends on knowing how things ordinarily go, so that an extraordinary event can be seen for what it is. This means that the existence of miracles does not undermine the regularity of nature, but presupposes it. [16:46]
• 2. Science and Rationality Are Not Identical Science is a powerful tool for understanding the natural world, but it is not the whole of rationality. There are questions—such as whether nature has been left to itself in a particular case—that science cannot answer. Rational belief sometimes requires us to look beyond the scientific method and consider historical and testimonial evidence. [14:41]
• 3. A Thoughtful Filter for Miracle Claims Is Essential Given the abundance of miracle claims across cultures and religions, it is rational to apply a filter before investing time in any particular claim. The DOUBTS criteria help us avoid wasting effort on claims that are distant, belated, trivial, or self-serving, and direct our attention to those that are public, sensory, and timely. This is not skepticism for its own sake, but a disciplined approach to evidence. [20:22]
• 4. The Uniqueness of the Resurrection as a Miracle Claim When the filter is applied, most miracle claims do not survive scrutiny. The resurrection of Jesus, however, stands out for its early, public proclamation, the transformation of its witnesses, and the establishment of commemorative practices. This makes it a uniquely strong candidate for rational belief, not because of dogma, but because of the quality of the evidence. [120:18]
• 5. Dogmatic Naturalism Is Itself a Barrier to Truth To rule out miracles a priori is to adopt a rule of thinking that would prevent us from acknowledging certain kinds of truth, even if they were real. True rationality requires openness to evidence, even when it challenges our preferred worldview. Skepticism should be applied to naturalism itself, not just to miracle claims. [167:32]

Youtube Chapters

• [00:00] - Welcome
• [01:12] - Introduction of Speakers
• [02:47] - Defining Miracles, Rationality, and “Could”
• [04:10] - What Is a Miracle?
• [05:11] - What Does It Mean to Be Rational?
• [06:36] - The Significance of “Could” in the Question
• [07:31] - Hume’s Argument Against Miracles
• [10:33] - Why Hume’s Picture Is Mistaken
• [14:41] - Science, Scientism, and Rationality
• [16:46] - Miracles and the Regular Order of Nature
• [19:23] - The Problem of Too Many Miracle Claims
• [20:22] - The DOUBTS Filter for Miracle Claims
• [30:56] - Strengthening the Case: The PAST Criteria
• [32:25] - Eyewitness Testimony: Weaknesses and Strengths
• [33:41] - Transition to Second Speaker
• [37:12] - Survey of Miracle Claims Across Religions
• [54:47] - The Problem of Miracle “Currency”
• [58:48] - The Challenge of Standards and Filters
• [66:47] - Rebuttals and Cross-Examination
• [120:18] - Q&A: The Resurrection and Other Miracle Claims
• [164:56] - Closing Statements

Bible Reading

John 3:1-2 — Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

Acts 2:22-24 — “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.”

Observation Questions

1. According to John 3:1-2, what was Nicodemus’ reasoning for believing that Jesus was sent from God? What role did “signs” or miracles play in his thinking? ([04:40])
2. In Acts 2:22-24, what does Peter say about the purpose of Jesus’ miracles, and how does he connect them to the resurrection?
3. In the sermon, what definition was given for a “miracle,” and how does it relate to the regular order of nature? ([03:40])
4. What are some of the “DOUBTS” criteria mentioned in the sermon for filtering miracle claims? ([20:22])

Interpretation Questions

1. Why does Nicodemus see miracles as evidence that God is with Jesus? What does this suggest about the relationship between miracles and faith? ([04:40])
2. The sermon argues that miracles “stand out” only because there is a regular order of nature. How does this idea help us understand why miracles are significant, rather than just random events? ([16:46])
3. The speaker says that science and rationality are not the same thing. What does it mean to be rational about miracles, according to the sermon? ([14:41])
4. Why does the sermon suggest that the resurrection of Jesus is a uniquely strong candidate for rational belief among miracle claims? ([02:00:18])

Application Questions

1. The sermon challenges us to “follow the evidence wherever it leads,” even if it challenges our assumptions. Is there an area of your life or faith where you have been reluctant to consider evidence that goes against your expectations? What would it look like to be more open? ([05:11])
2. The “DOUBTS” filter encourages us to be careful and discerning about miracle claims. Have you ever heard a miracle story that made you skeptical? What specific red flags did you notice, and how did you respond? ([20:22])
3. The speaker says that miracles are only recognizable because we know how nature usually works. How does your understanding of the regularity of nature affect your openness to the possibility of miracles? ([16:46])
4. The resurrection of Jesus is presented as a miracle with strong historical evidence. How confident do you feel about the evidence for the resurrection? What questions or doubts do you still have? ([02:00:18])
5. The sermon warns against “dogmatic naturalism”—the idea that miracles are impossible no matter what. Are there beliefs or assumptions you hold that might be closing you off from considering certain truths? How can you practice a more open-minded approach? ([02:47:32])
6. The speaker mentions that rational belief in miracles is not about wishful thinking, but about disciplined inquiry. How can you apply this kind of disciplined thinking to other areas of your faith or life decisions? ([20:22])
7. Think about a time when you or someone you know experienced something that seemed extraordinary or unexplainable. How did you process it? Did you look for natural explanations, or were you open to the possibility of a miracle? What would you do differently now after hearing this sermon? ([13:10])