Oops! I got so involved in what I was writing that I forgot about
format. Sorry about that. Here it is in ASCI text.
Bob Miller
--------------D9E4760787FA0AEB580639E0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1;
name="spirit.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="spirit.txt"
I have a question that has been floating around in the back of my mind fo=
r a long time. I see the question hinted at frequently but no one comes r=
ight our and asks it. The question: Where does the spiritual world fit in=
to our description of the physical world via Relativity, Quantum and Evol=
utionary theory? A definition. By spiritual world I mean what the Apostle=
Paul describes in Eph 6:12, "... our struggle is not against flesh and b=
lood, (the physical world) but against the rulers, against the authoritie=
s, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces=
of evil in the heavenly realms." (the spirit world) The Bible is replete=
with stories of demons and angels and encounters with God that have a ph=
ysical effect in this world. The last 2000 years of church history contai=
n hundreds of examples. Cf. "In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case=
for God's Action in History", R. Douglas Geivett and Gary R. Habermas, I=
V Press, 1997, reviewed in PSCF Vol 50,#2, 1998, page 149, and "Eternity =
in Their Hearts", Don Richardson, Regal Books, 1981. To take one example =
consider Paul's encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus in Acts 9. L=
ight and sound were generated and blindness caused, all physical effects =
in this world by a spiritual casual agent. I assume we cannot explain thi=
s physical event with our present laws. We could explain the light and so=
und, and perhaps the blindness, but not their source. That tells me that =
our present physical laws are incomplete precisely because they cannot of=
fer an explanation of the physical effect of the spiritual agent.
Robert Pennock states, "... supernatural explanations should never enter =
into scientific theorizing". PSCF, Vol 50, #3,1998, page 206, and in exco=
rating Phil Johnson for this sin issues this challenge to him, "Are divin=
e interventions occurring today in particular cases? If so, which ones, a=
nd how do we check? If not, how do we know?" (page 207) I can appreciate =
the utility for methodological naturalism as a practical guide for doing =
day to day science but how does that exclude spirit? Just because our lac=
k of immagination limits our ability to test for spirit does not mean tha=
t spirit does not exist? John Barrow comments in his book, "Theories of E=
verything,", UOP, 1991, "What are the things that cannot be included in t=
he physicist's conception of 'everything'? There appear to be such things=
, but they are more often then not excluded from the discussion on the gr=
ounds that they are not 'scientific' - a response not unlike that of the =
infamous Master of Balliol of whom it was said that 'what he doesn't know=
isn't knowledge'." John has written a couple of books detailing the limi=
ts to knowing via science. His most recent one is, "Impossibility: The Li=
mits of Science and the Science of Limits", UOP, 1998, which he closes b=
y saying, "Our knowledge about the Universe has an edge. Ultimately, we m=
ay even find that the fractal edge of our knowledge of the Universe defin=
es its character more precisely than its contents: that what cannot be kn=
own is more revealing that what can".
I can remember George Murphy, on this list, expressing discomfort with mi=
racles, and in one communication saying that he could accept the miracle =
of the ressurection but not much else. More recently my question was trig=
gered in my mind by the exchange between Howard Van Til and Bill Dembski.=
My impression is that in an effort to avoid the God-of-the-gaps syndrome=
both authors have produced definition of their view point, whether fully=
-gifted creation or ID, that borders on the strictly mechanical, so much =
so that Howard has been asked frequently how fully-gifted creation differ=
s from deism.
Is it impossible to meld the effects of the spiritual world with the phys=
ical world to =
produce a Theory of Everything that would be a truely complete descriptio=
n of the universe, or would it be considered sacriligious to try? Or to p=
ut it another way is it possible to completely describe the universe with=
out including spirit in your description? Does this throw us back to the =
God-of-the-gaps? Perhaps. It seems to me that part of the ASA charter is =
to probe for understanding where science ends and other ways of knowing k=
ick in. But if we exclude spirit a priori how will we learn?
--------------D9E4760787FA0AEB580639E0--