You bring a good point. One cannot talk about the supernatural unless what is
meant by natural or physical is first defined. I define the natural/physical
as data that can be obtained by mechanical, electrical, nuclear, etc...
devices. Man can detect the physical but he can also detect or infer the
supernatural. Of course, the existence of the physical and its complete
understanding will invariably lead to a Creator. The mystery is that the laws
and theories than man infers from the data do not explicitly include the
Creator. There is an interplay between the data, man's reasoning and the
existence of the Creator. I doubt very much that such mysteries will ever be
fathom by man. Moorad
>===== Original Message From Lucy Masters <masters@cox-internet.com> =====
>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
>
>
>
>----- Forwarded Message -----
>From: John W Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com>
>To: asa <asa@calvin.edu>
>Subject: Griffin #2
>
>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 - 19:57:12 EDT