Lucy replies:
You asked for a suggestion. I guess I might start by posing the
question: Is there any such thing as a creaturely process?
For example, let's suppose I start working in the chemical lab at our
local research hospital. In my spare time, I figure out the exact
percentages of different chemicals which make up a fine glass of
Cabernet. Further, I fuss around until I figure out how to condense all
of the ingredients EXCEPT the H2O so that I'm left with tiny microdots
of highly concentrated chemicals. I go to a cocktail party and tell
everyone that I can "turn water into wine" just like Jesus. I fill
everyone's wine glass with water, tell them to close their eyes, and pop
one tiny microdot into each glass. Seconds later, they open their eyes
to find Cabernet. Because I'm not Jesus, they wouldn't call this a
miracle. They'd call it magic.
But more to the point, was God involved in this process? Well, to my
way of thinking, God is involved in all processes. He provided me with
the intelligence and energy to figure this thing out. He provided all
of the chemical ingredients needed to make water into wine.
Should the folks at the table think God was not involved? Was Jesus
MORE involved in his miracle than I in mine simply because we don't know
**how** Jesus turned water into wine? Further, if we DID know how Jesus
did it, would it no longer be a miracle?
So...I would like to entertain the idea that there is no such thing as a
"creaturely process."
Is my thinking skewed?
Lucy
attached mail follows:
Hi Lucy
The examples you make illustrate the danger of God of the gaps thinking, not
only to philosophy and theology, but in decision making about how to use
technology. I find it a very sad position in that it sees God only in the
unknown. The point of the gospel that Paul preached on Mars Hill was that the
unknown has been made known. But there seems to be a deep human need to seek
meaning in mystery, rather than in relationship.
God of the gaps thinking seems to underlie much of what Philip Johnson writes,
at least with respect to the formation of biological diversity and the
appearance of life. However neither he not his other ID supporters have come
clean on whether they extend it to non biological systems. This is despite
them being repeatedly being asked for clarification. A recent example (April
9) was Paul Nelson's refusal to publicly answer Loren Haarsma's question "Are
carbon atoms intelligently designed?", despite promptings from Hill Payne and
myself, we are still waiting.
In many ways the supernatural-natural split is completely unhelpful for the
reasons you state. What matters is that God is always working in the world,
whether the results are explicable to us or not. A miracle is not necessarily
something inexplicable to present science, or even something fundamentally
inexplicable (although they may be both), it is an event that has significance
in God's salvation history. Also people use "supernatural" with respect not
just to God, but also the paranormal and demonic, which muddies the waters.
However, I think there is a need for a word to describe specific actions by
God in the world contrary to creaturely processes. Bill Payne's favourite is
the floating axe head, another would be the resurrection of Jesus. Any
suggestions?
Jon
Lucy Masters wrote:
> John wrote:
>
> "The main reason ... is ... the equation of religion with
> supernaturalism and the equation of science ...with a materialistic
> version of scientific naturalism" (pg xv).
>
> Lucy replies:
>
> You guys are .....way.....beyond me in philosophy, but here is my
> question from the standpoint of psychology (read: observations of human
> behavior and the "way" people "figure things out."): I wonder if the
> above equation remains valid in our age of rapid scientific
> advancement. It has been my *observation* that people categorize things
> or events as "supernatural" when they DO NOT understand them (it must be
> God), and they categorize things as "natural" when they DO understand
> them (it isn't God; it's just nature). Therefore, I do not see science
> as "destroying God," but I do see people moving away from the idea of
> God as science advances simply because it explains more things and
> events and our current bifurcation does not allow the presence of God in
> things we understand.
>
> I see a key issue with the future of Christianity resting with the idea
> of omnipresence. In other words, it should not matter whether something
> is understood or not, materialistic or unseen, apparently of design or
> of no design. I have always wondered why God is excluded from the
> natural world, materialism, and so on. A small case in point: I live
> in an EXTREMELY conservative part of the U.S., and I remember vividly
> when doctors first started using fiber optics on pregnant women down at
> the hospital. People were literally ranting and raving, and preachers
> were screaming in the churches. The problem? It seems folks came to
> the conclusion that the nine month pregnancy process was "God's miracle"
> and had to remain a big mystery. They actually believed that if we came
> to UNDERSTAND exactly what happened inside the womb during that process,
> that God would no longer be involved! They believed that by
> understanding, people would no longer recognize the process as a
> miracle. I do not have the exact quote (sorry), but I remember William
> F. Buckley, Jr. expressing the same idea in a debate he did on
> television against Eugenie Scott et al. He said something to the effect
> of, "We must have mysteries. We must not attempt to answer all
> questions scientifically. It is the great mysteries of life that keep
> our faith in God."
>
> If this point is valid, and it may be, then what a shame. What kind of
> thinking have we built into Christianity that mandates ignorance in
> order to maintain faith in God? Why must religion be associated ONLY
> with the supernatural? Why not the natural, too?
>
> Lucy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Griffin #2
> Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:47:41 -0600
> From: John W Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com>
> To: asa@calvin.edu
>
> Continuing notes on Griffin's book.
>
> GRIFFIN2.TXT
>
> 2. Notes on the PREFACE (3 pages)
>
> "The central question of this book is simply whether there is anything
> essential to science that is in conflict with any beliefs essential to
> vital religion, especially theistic religion. My answer is No, but the
> dominant answer has been Yes." (pg xv).
>
> "The main reason ... is ... the equation of religion with supernaturalism
> and the equation of science ...with a materialistic version of scientific
> naturalism" (pg xv).
>
> Griffin defines two terms, "naturalism(sam)" and "naturalism(ns). The
> first of these is maximal naturalism; the second minimal naturalism.
> These words appear to be close to, but not quite synonymous with
> metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism. Almost everyone,
> Griffin claims, understands scientific naturalism as naturalism(sam).
> Later on in the book he cites about two dozen authorities as evidence for
> his use of "almost everyone" in the above. It is, I think, because
> Bultmann understood naturalism this way, that his resulting liberal
> theology became so irrelevant to most of the religious community.
>
> However, Griffin asserts, naturalism(ns) is fully compatible with
> theistic religion, if that religion does not require a supernaturalistic
> version of theism. The book argues this thesis. It is dedicated to the
> thinkers at CTNS and the Templeton Foundation, to Bob Russell and Ian
> Barbour, and also to Jack Haught and Ted Peters. Griffin is a professor
> of the Philosophy of Religion & Theology at Claremont.
>
> End Preface notes.
>
> Burgy (John Burgeson)
>
> www.burgy.50megs.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 23 2001 - 19:01:19 EDT