Robert Miller asks:
> If we didn't believe in miracles
> why would we pray for healing, or a job, or any number of things that we
> ask God to intervene on?
The answer to this question hangs on the specific meanings of "miracles" and
"intervene" as they are here used. Do these terms entail the idea of what
Griffin identifies as traditional _supernaturalism_ (God breaks the
continuity of the creaturely cause/effect chain; God overpowers creaturely
systems to bring about an outcome that creaturely action could not have
accomplished)? If so, then Griffin would object and say that that is
precisely the supernaturalism that must be abandoned is the science/religion
warfare is to be resolved.
However, Griffin fully believes that intercessory prayer is wholly
appropriate and that God does act "variably" in the world to bring about
outcomes different from what may have otherwise occurred. One of Griffin's
goals is to articulate a concept of divine action that is both variable (so
that, for instance, it can constitute a response to prayer) and
non-coercive. Traditional supernaturalism includes the option of coercive
divine action, which process theology finds objectionable.
Bottom line: If I have read Griffin correctly, he believes that you may
indeed pray for healing, a job, etc., but that in so doing you should not
expect God to act _coercively_ in response. Rather, you should expect God to
act "persuasively" in calling upon the creaturely system to effect one
possible outcome (the desired one) rather than some other (undesirable) one.
Griffin does not believe in miracles in the sense of coercive supernatural
interventions, but he does believe in the appropriateness and effectiveness
of intercessory prayer.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 26 2001 - 10:33:42 EDT