Re: Signs of Scientism

We don't have "the ability to observe and reasonably believe in" the resurrection of Christ. It happened ~2000 years ago. Even the apostles didn't have such ability. It was a highly (!) contingent revelatory event which was granted to certain witnesses. Thus it was very different from the types of phenomena that ID proponents appeal to, things that any tranined scientist who wishes to can study at a time & place of her or his choosing. 9& when they do it's more & more appearing that they don't support ID claims but that's another matter.)

Why do we believe in the resurrection? 1st, because of the apostolic witness embodied in scripture. But there is no such witness to the necessity for direct divine action to bring about the bacterial flagellum &c.

In another way we believe it because the knowledge of ourselves and the world which it implies is broader & more profound than what we get without it: Fides quaerens intellectum. Similarly, I would argue - & I freely grant that there is a certain amount of subjectivity involved here - that an understanding of the world in which God is continually active in the world in a hidden way, in which God limits divine action for the ultimate good of creation - is broader & more profound, & more consistent with the way in which God is revealed in Christ, than the picture that IDers give us.

Finally, we do indeed have good historical & literary - as well of course as theological - grounds - for believing that Jesus was raised on the 3d day. But the evidence is (a) not logically compelling & (b) does not absolutely exclude the kinds of naturalistic explanations ("swoon" &c) that have sometimes been given. To believe not only that Jesus was raised from the dead but that this has the significance that the Christian tradition has always ascribed to it, is an act of faith. It is faith that can point to supporting evidence but it is nevertheless faith of a kind that isn't required for the acceptance of scientific data or theories.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Opderbeck
  To: Pim van Meurs
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 8:36 AM
  Subject: Re: Signs of Scientism
  ...................
  I'd still very much like the perspectives of Keith and other ASA members on why the ability to observe and reasonably believe in a "supernatural" event such as the resurrection differs from the ability to observe and reasonably believe in "supernatural" creative events in natural history. As I've understood the discussion so far, it's not only that there's no evidence for such "supernatural" creative events, its that such events are in principle not detectable. I'm trying to understand the "in principle not detectable" part. Thanks.
Received on Wed Jan 18 17:13:41 2006