Re: [asa] God as Cause - for David Campbell

> Please excuse the repeated question. I'm still wondering what would count as a method that is not a 'natural method.'
> Aren't all methods 'natural'?
> If human beings are 'natural' and all methods are made by human beings, then doesn't it follow logically that all methods are 'natural'? <

In the context of "philosophical naturalism" or "methodological
naturalism", "natural" is opposed to "supernatural". Thus, natural
methods would be those operating in accord with the laws of physics,
chemistry, etc. and non-natural methods would be ones that involve
something outside such laws.

The natural/supernatural dichotomy is not exactly the best way to
describe things from a Christian perspective, because it tends to be
interpreted as "God not involved" versus "God involved"; in reality it
is "God making use of ordinary means" versus "God working in some
other way". At the ultimate level, there is not much difference
between natural and supernatural events; God works just as much in
both. Rather, it is a practical difference-do scientific explanations
work here or not?

Humans combine natural and supernatural aspects. Thus anything
someone does probably has at least some natural component. Ignoring
the aspects of God's sustenance, guidance, etc., some human
activities, such as digestion, can be viewed at the surficial level to
be natural. Human behavior, decision-making, etc. tend to have
varying natural and non-natural components.

An examples of a non-natural method would be prayer. Although one
could analyze physiology, etc. associated with prayer, the basic
premise of prayer is supernatural. Miracles would be examples of
non-natural methods.

-- 
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.