><< I believe the solution is to approach every problem with a genuine search
>for natural explanations, but with the willingness to acknowledge the
>possibility of (direct) divine action. That avoids the error of occasionalism
>(which you describe as
>'God-of-the-Gaps theology eating everything up) on the one hand, and the
>error of
>methodological naturalism on the other hand. >>
>
>It seems to me that this statement sums up the arguments on the thread of
>"Johnson and intelligent design." Is this not a statement on which we can
>all agree?
If methodological naturalism is corrected to metaphysical naturalism, then
I think it will generally go over well.
Possibility of direct divine action may need a bit of clarification. That
God is able to act directly at any point is probably a point of general
agreement. However, some would advocate theological reasons to believe
that He does not act directly in certain areas, while maintaining a belief
in His full sovereignty over those areas. Based on this view, you could
rule out direct action in these particular areas. Conversely, the Bible
indicates certain events to have been miraculous, making safe the
assumption that methodological naturalism will not provide adequate
explanation. Of course, it could be used to determine exactly what parts
of the event were miraculous, to the extent we have information. For
example, Exodus mentions the use of the wind to part the sea, and the
possibility of the wind parting one of the lakes in the region has been
confirmed by computer modeling. However, informing Moses of the event in
advance did not take place naturally.
David C.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 05 2000 - 13:17:28 EDT