Re: [asa] Of motes and beams

>
> I am wondering what the purpose of these precious revelations might be if
> not to refute methodological naturalism - which all here appear to accept as
> a valid basis for practising science. Clearly, these extracts suggest that
> the _natural_ is, and always has been, open to supernatural activity - in
> God's wisdom, and at His discretion.
>

What is methodological naturalism, and what is it good for?

The name implies that it is a method, rather than a philosophy, though
people are not very careful about defining it as such. I would define it as
the assumption that ordinary, "natural" explanations are likely to work most
of the time. This assumption is well-supported Biblically. Genesis 1
highlights the fact that everything is part of God's creation. There aren't
other gods, chaos monsters, Titans, etc. that might disrupt things, contrary
to the beliefs of pagans. Also, God created us to rule over creation.
Being a competent ruler requires ability to predict the consequences of our
actions. This implies both that God has made creation to work in a fairly
predictable manner and that He has given us the ability to understand enough
of this to do our job.

Also, we see in Scripture that miracles (defined as events that apparently
violate the laws of nature) are relatively rare, function for a specific
purpose, and seem to be minimally used. This also agrees with everyday
experience, but sharply contrasts with things such as apocryphal writings,
tales of the saints, mythology, Harry Potter, etc. An example of the
minimal use of miracles even when they happen comes in the events in Acts
when supernatural means are used to get a human evangelist and audience
together. Surely angels could give basic teaching of the gospel, instead of
telling people to go find other people to get the message. Similarly, the
axe head floated but still had to be picked up and fastened on more
securely; the water turned to wine but still had to be served in the
ordinary way; thousands were fed from a few loaves and fish, but at least
thirteen were fed on leftover loaves and fish afterwards.

Thus, although supernatural events are certainly possible, they are rare
enough that it makes sense to try other explanations first.

Also, science can't address most supernatural actions. Claims of magic-like
regular manipulation of physical things can be tested scientifically. E.g.,
you can get a horoscope and confirm that it does not correctly describe the
experiences of people born at a certain time better than the experiences of
people born at another time. However, Biblical miracles are unique,
exceptional events that happen at a particular time and place because God
chose to do so, not because reciting the right prayer (etc.) automatically
gets a particular miracle in response. To take up the ghost example, I can
examine the place where the ghost was supposedly encountered and see if I
can find natural causes for the experience (a local practical joker, for
example). However, there's no reason to expect a genuine ghost to comply
with my experiments, nor is it clear what sort of experiment would be
appropriate. With a time machine, I could have some sort of fancy chemical
analyses running on a water pot in Cana, but all that would tell me was that
an abrupt change had taken place, which we already know from the Biblical
account anyway.

  --
> Dr. David Campbell
> 425 Scientific Collections
> University of Alabama
> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jul 12 13:38:18 2006