>>I'd also add that "random" is the sort of word that can muddy the waters,
>>as evidenced by its frequent misuse in caricatures of evolutionary theory
>>and also the danger of going onto tangents on interpretation of quantum
>>mechanics which I think is not very relevant to the issue at hand. How
>>about just using a term like "natural law" for this category?
Craig responded:
> My response is to ask whether "natural law" is an appropriate word to
>use for a resurrection (MATA) or healing (MATA)? for a theistically
>influenced battle (semi-MATA)? or for mental-emotional support (often but
>not always NATA)?
> If all of these are claimed, in the Bible, to be examples of theistic
>action, and if we're not comfortable with calling a miracle "natural law"
>(which trivializes events such as Exodus 17 or Acts 3), then why should
>"natural law" be an acceptable term for describing TA-events at other
>locations along the MATA-NATA continuum?
But I was not suggesting "natural law" for anything along this continuum
as you define it; I was just suggesting it as a preferable term to MIRM.
That may not have been clear because I separately questioned whether it
was useful to think of this category (wherein God's sustenance,
concurrence, etc. would fall) as distinct from what you call Natural
Appearing Theistic Action (NATA), but that is a separate issue.
My point was that the word "random" is not what you are trying to say in
that category. After all, many of the things one might put there (the
path of Newton's apple after it leaves the tree, the motions of the
planets) have a "randomness" content that is for most purposes
negligible. What I think you really mean instead of "random" is
something like "unguided" or "natural", which is why I suggested "natural
law" as a clearer name for this category. Whether the categorization
works at all is an independent question.
While I'm here, I note that in Craig's other post was a statement
defending his MIRM category on the grounds that, even though we
Christians know that nothing takes place without "theistic action" (at
least on the level of concurrence, etc.), the rest of the world does not
see it that way. I would argue that we should not let the rest of the
world define our categories; acceptance of categories created by atheists
is already a big source of trouble (I'm thinking of the unthinking
acceptance by much of the church of the view of God's identity as a
gap-filler who is therefore squeezed out by evolution and other
scientific advances). If we are going to classify, let's get the
categories right from the standpoint of Biblical theology, and then worry
about explaining it to the world.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dr. Allan H. Harvey | aharvey@boulder.nist.gov |
| Physical and Chemical Properties Division | Phone: (303)497-3555 |
| National Institute of Standards & Technology | Fax: (303)497-5224 |
| 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303 | |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| "Don't blame the government for what I say, or vice versa." |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------