Re: Spellbound? (was Re: Cobb County)

Vernon Jenkins wrote:

"...I believe the phenomena are of _supernatural_ origin; indeed, of _divine_ origin - in view of the context in which they appear...."

So, Vernon, you and I believe in Intelligent Design, but ultimately we have to acknowledge that our belief is an emotional response to certain kinds of complexity that we think the world could not have generated without special divine input. We have no proof--and are unlikely ever to have proof--that these complexities actually required special divine input. (What form would such proof take, anyway?) And on that lack of proof our ability to persuade those who aren't already like-minded flounders: We express our awe, but others do not share it, or else they attach a different significance to it, and that's where the intercourse must end.

We ourselves, however, are free to go on soaking up spiritual reinforcement from these phenomena because it's clear to us we've witnessed the very hand of God.

But such sentiments are neither new or revolutionary. Many people of God have found reinforcement for their belief in him from looking at the world's phenomena. The book of Job above others invites people to do so.

Don

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Vernon Jenkins<mailto:vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
  To: George Murphy<mailto:gmurphy@raex.com> ; CMSharp01@aol.com<mailto:CMSharp01@aol.com> ; gordon brown<mailto:gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu> ; Roger G. Olson<mailto:rogero@saintjoe.edu>
  Cc: ASA list<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
  Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 4:01 PM
  Subject: Re: Spellbound? (was Re: Cobb County)

  George,

  You concluded your last posting with the paragraph, Can you read? I did not ignore what you said and replied "Are you completely incapable of considering the possibility that you might be wrong?" Are you?

  But surely you must see that what really matters here is whether _you_ think I'm wrong - and in what respect? and why? For myself, I am incapable of believing the phenomena to be a figment of my imagination; or that they may be reasonably attributed to chance, or the work of an exceptionally gifted man; or are not intended to accomplish some significant purpose.

  In other words, I believe the phenomena are of _supernatural_ origin; indeed, of _divine_ origin - in view of the context in which they appear. So where does that leave methodological naturalism? Should it, in your view, still command the complete confidence of those involved in the scientific endeavour?

  You will no doubt agree that these are serious issues, George. If you find any flaws in what I have written above, please advise so that, together, we may proceed to uncover the truth.

  Shalom
  Vernon
Received on Fri Jan 28 01:24:11 2005