Roger << Is it scientifically possible for a human being to actually physically die and be dead for three days and then rise again and be alive? can we all agree most scientists would say that is impossible from a scientific perspective??? >>
Answer: Science does not speak to miracles. Does science “reject” miracles as “impossible” ? Not really, since science simply assumes natural explanations for events. It is a concept known as “methodological naturalism.” There are some differences/distinctions in the things you have mentioned however.
The
Resurrection of Jesus can be argued on historical grounds as the
"best explanation" (best explanatory scope and power, etc), E.G. all of
William Lane Craig’s debates do this successfully. This “best explanation” that “God raised Jesus from the dead” only entails one assumption: that God exists. But this assumption can be argued for on other grounds (classic arguments for God, etc).
The Virgin Birth (or virginal conception) would be a miracle, but also can be argued on historical grounds, E.G. the Protestant theologian Machen’s
The Virgin Birth of Christ is probably your classic book and best defense on the subject. For a recent Catholic view see Raymond Brown’s
Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus or evangelical Gromacki’s
The Virgin Birth: A Biblical Study of the Deity of Jesus Christ as good defenses of this doctrine with answers to objections.
The persons of Adam/Eve would not be miracle per se, but can be traced back to a particular place and time. To summarize Catholic philosopher Dennis Bonnette:
“…evolutionary science sees the broad picture of human origins taking place over a time-frame measured in hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years. It cannot focus on events affecting a single pair of humans at a given point in time. Anthropological data and theories are so general that they cannot oppose particular facts about an Adam and Eve, unless even the broad trends of such data are shown to oppose such particulars’ possibilities. Speculation based upon present data can, at best, indicate the nature and activities of early humans, pointing to largely undefined populations and imprecise time periods. It cannot address with precision the conditions of existence of a single pair of humans at a particular, distant-past time. It cannot exclude, a priori, the possibility of miraculous divine intervention whose reality falls entirely outside the fossil record.” (From my
Adam, Eve, and the Hominid Fossil Record)
What is a “miracle” or not testable by science is the point at which they, among the population of hominids/humans living at the time, were given spiritual souls by God (whether this happened instantly, or over a period of time is another question). This can be historically / culturally / anthropologically estimated by
first evidence of "hominization" (when we became human) from (1) first presence of self-awareness (consciousness), (2) the presence of language, (3) the presence of religion.
My view (and the view I think of recent Popes at least) is that Catholic dogma should not be in conflict with science where dogma and science might overlap. Science does not speak for or against miracles, nor such things as the sacraments (God working through material things, i.e. Baptism, Eucharist, grace, salvation, forgiveness of sins, God raising people from the dead, God curing people, etc). It simply assumes natural explanations.
Phil P
