From: Rich Blinne (e-lists@blinne.org)
Date: Wed May 21 2003 - 13:10:39 EDT
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Howard J. Van Till
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 7:59 AM
To: Burgy; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Response to Howard on Tillich & Bultmann
In his book, Religion and Scientific Naturalism, however, process theologian
David Ray Griffin criticized my approach for its failure to be sufficiently
daring and consistent. In effect, his question to me was, If supernatural
intervention is unnecessary for the whole of the universe's formational
history (as I believe it is) , then why not be consistent and dare to
generalize to the position that supernatural intervention is not only
unnecessary, but totally out of character for God. Reject supernaturalism
altogether and adopt a naturalistic theism.
I have said on many occasions that I found Griffin's criticism the most
valuable criticism I have ever received. The consistency he encourages makes
good sense to me. The naturalistic theism he articulates is consistent with
the totality of my life experience, which includes my experience as a person
trained in science. But it is not science, by itself, that moves me away
from traditional supernaturalism toward naturalistic theism. It is the way
that naturalistic theism rings true to the whole of my life experience that
attracts me to it.
I am not asking for anyone on this list to agree with my choice. The limited
point is that my choice is one that goes far beyond science. To tie in with
my opening question, SCIENCE does not deserve either the credit or blame for
my choice.
------------------------
This whole situation begs a precise definition of supernatural and
particularly miracles. John Locke's definition is as good as any:
To discourse of miracles without defining what one means by the word
miracle, is to make a show, but in effect to talk of nothing. A miracle then
I take to be a sensible operation, which, being above the comprehension of
the spectator, and in his opinion contrary to the established course of
nature, is taken by him to be divine.
Note that this presupposes a divine order is the norm. For Locke the
purpose of miracles are as follows:
To know that any revelation is from God, it is necessary to know that the
messenger that delivers it is sent from God, and that cannot be known but by
some credentials given him by God himself. Let us see then whether miracles,
in my sense, be not such credentials, and will not infallibly direct us
right in the search of divine revelation.
It is no surprise that David Hume's naturalism reacted to Locke vigorously
much like your process theologian did to you. Both Hume and your process
theologian committed the same logical fallacy of incomplete induction.
Quantum mechanics is not necessary because we observe classical mechanics as
the norm. But once the experimental data is in quantum mechanics is
established. Thus, while quantum mechanics is not necessary, nevertheless,
it is.
Your process theologian is extrapolating from what he observed to conclude
any violation of the natural order is inconsistent with the character of
God. It would be against God's apparent character if the purpose of
miracles was capricious as appears to be the case in episodic creationism.
If, on the other hand, the purpose of miracles is to give credit to the
proposer ala Locke then it would not be a violation of God's character.
That the natural order is overwhelming established gives miracles the
sufficient force to establish Divine communication. A universal complaint
against Christianity is the lack of communication between God and His
creation. The complaint is universal because is there is a concomitant
universal presupposition that if God exists He ought to communicate with His
creation. So, it is well within God's character for God to accredit
communication alleged to be Divine with miracles.
By having a bar set too low for proof of miracles and the supernatural the
supposed friends of Christianity discredit all miracles and ultimately
Christianity itself. The nature of the Biblical miracles are undeniably
Divine to both the scientific and unscientific mind. Both agree that if
someone comes back from the dead after three days then that event is not
possible in the natural order and must have a Divine cause. Thus, what is
said by such a person has the Divine fiat. One consequence of this approach
to miracles is that it has built in a cessation to them. Thus, the fact
that we no longer observe miracles is not an issue because the purpose for
them has passed save for identifying false prophets by their failure to
perform miracles.
So, what does this mean for the scientific Christian? It means that the
choice between miracles -- properly defined -- and naturalism is a false
one. Belief in both is not at all inconsistent. It also proves your thesis
that it doesn't have anything to do with science but philosophy, or as you
put it a worldview issue.
I might add, however, that if you are already believed in naturalism that
you might be attracted to science. Further, if lacking a
traditionally-defined religion you might also make science your religion --
or at least your ideology. So, science may be the symptom rather than the
cause of irreligion amongst scientists. That is, the irreligious become
scientists rather than the other way around. Science as religion happened
in the 20th Century while art was the religion in the 19th. I am not sure
what substitute "religion" for the 21st will be. My best guess is that the
po-mo crowd will create a roll your own spirituality for this century. I
realize my last point is painted in very broad strokes. Your mileage may
vary.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed May 21 2003 - 13:45:35 EDT