Re: Classification scheme for ID debate

George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:32:48 -0400

Keith Walker wrote:
>
> George Murphy writes:
> > But there is no reason to think that all the events you note are
> >miraculous in the "supernatural" sense. Yes, the Holy Spirit works
> >faith, gives charisms &c - but much of what takes place can be described
> >& to some extent explained in terms of psychology. N.B. - this doesn't
> >mean the Spirit doesn't do them, any more than healing through surgery
> >takes place without God.
>
> I'm not sure how psychological causes can explain the source of the
> _information_ in Biblical prophecy.
>
> It seems to me that some of the clearest cases of intervention in the Bible
> are prophecies, and that this may suggest that announcements of divine
> speech should be examined as possible indications of intervention, at the
> very least through the insertion of information not already present in the
> natural order. 'And God said,...and God said,... and God said...'!

A big topic, about which just a few comments now.
1) The word of God is to be understood first as something alive
& active which does things, & only secondarily as a source of
information. Cf. Gen.1, Is.55:10-11, Jer.23:29 &c.
2) Much biblical prophecy isn't predictive. Of that which is,
a great deal is short or intermediate term - i.e., a few years or
decade. Some of these are things which a perceptive _& inspired_
social/political/economic observer might foresee - e.g. Amos on what
would happen to the northen kingdom.
Historical-critical scholars sometimes argue that the 3 passion
predictions by Jesus in the synoptic gospels must have been composed
after the resurrection. Details may be the work of the gospel
writers/editors, but there would really be nothing amazing about Jesus,
considered merely as a good student of history & social conditions,
realizing that the course he was set on would end up getting him killed.
Such predictions need not follow the model of Newtonian physics
and Laplacian determinism, but may be a more holistic & subconscious
matter. (I think Jung had some ideas along this line.)
3) The laws of physics do not rule out "backwards in time"
signalling. In classical electrodynamics, e.g., the "advanced
potentials" which would convey such signals are usually just omitted,
but there is no compelling reason to do so. Tachyons (if they exist) &
closed timelike worldlines in some general relativity space-times are
more exotic possibilities.
4) With all that, I again emphasize that I don't suggest these
notions as _alternatives_ to divine inspiration of prediction, but as
_means_ for it.
George Murphy