Natural Law, Barth, Rahner and Design (was: Re: [asa] Apologetics Conference)

Keith said:* I am not saying anything about the ability of human reason. I
am simply stating that supernatural agents are not subject to SCIENTIFIC
test and confirmation.*

I don't mean this to sound as it will sound in writing, but this seems not
useful and uninteresting to me. Ultimately, this sets up a tautology:
"science is methodological naturalism, therefore, God is not a scientific
concept." It tells us nothing of what we're capable of knowing as human
beings. It seems to me that this kind of tautological definition of Science
is just as much driven by the American culture wars as the conflicting
definitions pushed by the ID side. It has everything to do with what gets
taught in school under the U.S. Constitution, and nothing to do with the
more interesting and meaningful question of whether humans can perceive
God's activity through natural reason.

It occurred to me that the broader debate can be framed as a a question
about whether or not Barth was right. A strong version of the "hidden God"
proposition seems derived from Barth's views about human inability to know
God. The "theology of the cross" as applied to knowledge of God through
creation is a strongly Barthian proposition, isn't it?

What, then, about those of us who aren't such dyed-in-the-wool Barthians,
particularly Catholics or protestants who think Rahner and his descendants
(and his antecedents, including Aquinas) have important things to say about
human reason, natural law, and the analogical knowledge of God? Is everyone
who holds a strong TE position fundamentally Barthian?

On 11/18/06, Keith Miller <kbmill@ksu.edu> wrote:
>
> David Opderbeck wrote:
>
>
>
> Are you suggesting that human agency and will, and human reason, are so
unlike God's agency, will, and reason that humans are utterly incapable of
discerning whether God has acted in history absent specific verbal / written
revelatory confirmation? If so, what theological perspective are you
drawing this from?
>
>
>
> I am not saying anything about the ability of human reason. I am simply
stating that supernatural agents are not subject to SCIENTIFIC test and
confirmation. They are not because supernatural agents can by definition do
anything -- they are unconstrained. They are equivalent from a scientific
perspective to a statement of ignorance. Unless we claim perfect and
complete knowledge of the natural world and its processes and capabilities,
any gap in our current scientific understanding is just that. Those gaps
could be the result of direct divine intervention -- but that conclusion
would be theological, not scientific.
>
>
> Theologically I do not see either biblical warrant, or apologetic value,
in tying any current gap in our scientific understanding of the natural
world to a demonstration of divine agency. There is natural revelation but
that has nothing to do with science. That is God's gracious revelation to
us, by God's initiative. As I have stated previously, if we cannot see God
in a sunset or a flower, we will not see God in a mitotic spindle or a
flagellum. If we cannot see God in those things for which we do have
scientific understanding, we will not see God in those things for which we
don't.
>
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
> Keith B. Miller
> Research Assistant Professor
> Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
> Manhattan, KS 66506-3201
> 785-532-2250
> http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Web:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com
Blog:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
MySpace (Music):  http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.