Re: Enhancing faith / conflicts & confrontation

>
> I should stop calling this "evolutionary philosophy" since evolution is
> only
> part of this picture. Perhaps the term: "selectively skeptical
> philosophy" is
> a more accurate phrase. If a natural explanation can seem to suffice,
> then
> jettison the God-talk. In other words, doubt almost everything. But
> especially
> doubt religious claims. Evolution is, for some people, an extension of
> that
> very thing. But as others point out in this thread, a world that can
> produce
> what it has is a pretty awesome thing -- I agree.

The real problem is the god of the gaps assumption-the assumption that
either God or natural explanations, not both, may be invoked as an
explanation. In part, this is a confusion of categories. Jeremiah 14:22
asserts that neither foreign gods nor the skies themselves provide rain, but
only God. Do we fault Jeremiah for an inadequate grasp of meteorology, or
do we credit him with a theological statement that all things ultimately
depend on God's sovereign guidance and sustenance?

There are plenty of delusional religious claims, attributing things to
miraculous action when natural explanations suffice and other aspects of the
religious claim are highly problematic. Natural explanations work very well
for the physical aspects of a vast range of things. We need to exercise
careful judgement with regard to religious claims, and the very restricted
use of miracles in the Bible suggests that we should expect them to be
rare. However, this does not exclude gratitude for what happens, no matter
how God achieves it.

Dr. David Campbell
> 425 Scientific Collections
> University of Alabama
> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
Received on Tue Jun 6 15:18:21 2006