Walt,
I don't think I've missed your point. It's just that I cannot reconcile
it with a reasonable Christian approach to science. I noted earlier that
you apparently do not distinguish metaphysical naturalism from
methodological naturalism. But now it seems that you are arguing that,
whenever we encounter unexpected phenomena, like dark matter, we should
consider that it may be God tinkering directly with his creation. That
possibility has nothing to do with science. I consider it also bad
theology. The miracles that run counter to scientific explanation
occurred to validate God's message. As the Lord told Philip (I
paraphrase), "If you haven't seen the Father in me, believe because of
the miracles."
Do you remember Glen's encounter with a Turk and a translator? There is a
fully natural explanation, though not quite a strictly scientific one,
for it was a singular event. Each individual had a reason to be in the
terminal. Their interpersonal contacts were in no way out of the
ordinary. Normal is written all over the events. On the other hand, the
probability of such meetings in order to bring about the witness is
extremely low. So we are persuaded that God intervened. Yet there is not
the slightest indication of any variation in any natural law.
I sit here looking at the computer monitor, tapping at the keys. I assume
that there are brain waves, though I can't prove it. It may be that they
only occur when an EEG is hooked up, but I hold that possibility to be
both unscientific and also philosophically and theologically silly. I
consider that all that is going on physically falls under the various
scientific disciplines. At the same time I am thankful to the Lord for
all the function and activity, for bringing things to mind, for having me
read an article in a journal just as the point is relevant to the paper
I'm writing, etc. Major direction I find in scripture, of course, and I
try to use whatever knowledge I have gained to plan. But I believe God's
guidance goes beyond these, yet this all goes on without any variation in
what God has appointed for the natural function of the universe.
I believe that the brothers and sisters on the list, though they may not
phrase things this way, have the same commitment. God works through
natural occurrences even when we are amazed at the concatenation of
events. He does not normally stick a finger in (this is doesn't, not
can't), but his intervention is totally outside of science. However, this
does not mean that whatever we don't understand is likely to be a
miracle.
Anyone who says that naturalism is a discovered law is a fool. "That's
all there is" also is not a scientific statement. But I have not found
any of the ASAers making such claims. They believe in methodological
naturalism as essential to science. But this does not saddle them with
metaphysical naturalism. To accuse them of accepting the latter is either
ignorant or perverse. To try to make science cover events outside of the
natural is "neither fish ... nor good red beef," but it is foul. However,
human knowledge is not restricted to the scientific method, but the
criteria for philosophy and theology are different.
I think I have understood your approach. Have you understood mine?
Dave
On Thu, 06 Jun 2002 05:11:53 -0400 Walter Hicks
<wallyshoes@mindspring.com> writes:
shrug
It seems to be inordinately difficult for me to make my point so I will
try one more time and then give up.
There are many on this list who have taken the position -- sometimes
indirectly and sometimes quite explicitly --- that it is not in God's
nature to set aside His own physical laws and interact with his own
universe. That is clearly a religious belief not a scientific one. That
is more than just saying "we don't know what causes a given phenomena"
(like galactic motion). It is saying that we absolutely _do_ know that it
is a "natural" and must be "dark matter" because what else could it be?
Then we say that everyone who does not agree with that is being
"unscientific" as if methodological naturalism is a discovered law in
itself that has never been violated. Of course it _cannot_ be violated
when it is _defined_ to be true by those who define science to exclude it
in the first place. The reasoning is circular at best.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 06 2002 - 22:17:15 EDT