>This is absolutely my point. If prayer is correlated with healing, the
>science *must* assume that there is a naturalistic basis (as with origins).
>Whether or not `we become confident that an observed phenomena has no
>naturalistic basis' is completely dependent upon our world view.
>
>Is the healing really due to the intervention of God or due to some (as
>yet unknown) physical processes? Of course science will assume the
>latter. (And there is nothing wrong with that, since science is not
>about truth).
But a Christian scientist might also look for naturalistic processes and
still attribute the power of prayer to God's special intervention. The
problem here has to do with the functional definition of supernatural. By
definition, a decision by God to intervene in the natural world is
supernatural, but he may do so by affecting natural processes that can then
be investigated by science. Here, one's world view does not necessarily
affect the understanding of the naturalistic processes, only the
understanding of the source of the process. On this line of thought, why
can't we view the cure of cancer by chemotherapy as having a supernatural
origin since God gifted humans with the ability to understand and operate in
the natural world like no other living being?
>But if in fact the healing is due to the intervention of God, science
>will have trouble filling in the gaps between whatever mechanisms
>are proposed and really explaining the observation. Most Scientists
>will likely be convinced that the gaps can ultimately be closed, but
>that is because they do not believe in divine intervention.
To reiterate, I don't think that it is inconceivable that a miracle will
impact the natural world in a way that can be investigated by science.
>
>Doesn't this situation seem analogous to evolution?
>
>But of course, as you point out, if the current experiments fail to
>correlate prayer with healing, my argument is moot.
>
>My ongoing prediction is that such a correlation (in some area like
>this) will ultimately be established and then science will shift
>its paradigm, making more of today's supernatural tomorrow's natural.
However, one problem with scientific investigation of miracles is that
unless they are predictable, they may be hard to investigate in a systematic
fashion. That is, if God decides to heal one person in response to prayer,
but not another person, we may not be able to adequately measure the effect
of prayer because it would defy statistical measurements of significance.
In other words, we would have to be able to statistically predict the mind
of God.
>
>This is what science is about: demystifying the universe. At one
>point in time the prediction of eclipses was pretty supernatural.
Righto. And this returns us to the problem with defining miracles. In
CONFESSIONS, Augustine has a great quote about time: "What, then is time? I
know well enough what it is, provided that nobody asks me".
What then are miracles? I know well enough provided that nobody asks me.
Shalom,
Steve
__________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53792
"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings
to search out a matter." Proverbs
__________________________________________________________________________