Re: Signs of Scientism

Thank you George. You say this: "*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*." I'm not sure I agree totally
with you here, though I think I partly agree with you. We can't observe the
history of evolution or most of the history of the universe directly
either. We can only deduce it from presently observable data and other
supporting evidence. And, unlike most of the history of the universe, God
did grant to some human witnesses the privilege of seeing and touching the
resurrected Christ, and we have the written testimony of some of those
witnesses. Is there "more" evidence for some natural phenomena than for the
resurrection? Sure, but I'd say that makes the evidence different in
amount, not wholly different in kind. But I do agree that the belief which
accepts the resurrection as evidence of Christ's divinity and as
foundational to a life-altering faith is different in kind than "ordinary"
beliefs about the world. (BTW, I did spring the $40 for your book and am
looking forward to reading it).

My main point / question, though, was this: I see (among others) two
threads of objection to ID here. One is that ID'ers misread the evidence.
The other is that ID is false as a matter of principle because it's
impossible to detect a supernatural event. It's this latter thread I'm
trying to understand against the backdrop of an orthodox Christian faith
that accepts the Biblical witness to miracles. I understand Dick's point
that the miracles recorded in scripture typically were given and recorded
for the purpose of authenticating something about God's nature or
purposes. But, the people who observed those miracles were able to observe
their effects and distinguish them from "ordinary" events -- indeed, that is
the very purpose for which they were given. It seems to me, then, that
human beings in principle are capable at least sometimes of discerning or
detecting that a "supernatural" event has occurred against the backdrop of
"ordinary" or "natural" events. If that is true with respect to miracles
such as the resurrection, why couldn't it be true for miraculous acts of
creation?

On 1/18/06, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
>
> After sending this & seeing it come in on the screen I realized that my
1st sentence could be badly misunderstood. My point is that we don't have
the ability to observe the resurrection. Belief is another matter - though
it's also true that faith itself is a work of the Holy Spirit.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: George Murphy
> To: David Opderbeck ; Pim van Meurs
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:12 PM
> Subject: 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.
......................................................
Received on Wed Jan 18 18:49:25 2006