communication - "miracles"
F.M. Phelps IV (34IGJY4@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU)
Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:32:42 -0500I am a bit annoyed that every word which one attempts to use to mean an
event, inexplicable even in priciple by science, is immediately attacked.
We know that "miracle" will not do as there are "miracles of timing" and
natural events like the birth of a child that some want to call
"miraculous". When we try "Violation of the Laws of Nature" people write
saying that "there is no scuh thing as natural law as God is really the one
doing everything, not Nature." And "gaps" is not very good as it may mean
we just don't know enough yet. Some want us to use 'irregularities" or
"God's way of working which was different than the way He usually works"
but that is too watered down. My plea: Can we all settle on ONE TERM that
we can all use to mean the kind of event which I am trying to describe?
The goal here is communication without having to explain what we mean all
the time. As an example, although I hate the term "methodological
naturalism", I think it has, at least, increased understanding and
communication between naturalists and ID people.
My (half serious) provocative suggestion: "Events Which Contradict
Naturalism" (EWCN)
Fred Phelps
>>
>> We're bogging down in the term "miracle" here. If God is constantly
>performing
>>"miracles" to sustain the universe then I think they cease to fit the
>definition
>>of "miracle" (although in some sense I do believe that God miraculously
>sustains
>>the world).
>
>I can live with that expanded meaning of the word "miracle." In fact, it is
>the ubiquitous presence of God's hand in nature that gives rise to human
>reason and the understanding of rational nature by men. I call that
>miraculous. An involved God.
>