>I am not sure we use the same criteria in doing science as we
>use in everyday life.
I think there is (and should be) a large overlap between the
problem-solving methods used in science and in other areas of life.
>It is unclear to me at what point I am
>willing to assert that a particular event was "God caused."
Just because there is a continuum, with no clear place to "draw
a line," this doesn't mean that we cannot (or should not) draw lines.
Numerous analogies are available: Spectral colors blend together, but
we can still tell violet from green from orange, even though there is
no dividing line (that everyone would agree on) between red and orange,
or between orange and yellow,... Or think about a stove: would you
touch a burner that is 50 degrees Fahrenheit? 100? 200? .... 2200?
At some point in-between you will say "no more" even though there is
not much difference between just below and just above this point.
The important concept is that 50 degrees and 2200 degrees are
clearly distinguishable.
>The flavor of evangelicalism that
>I have been involved with for years tends to say that if it wasn't a
>miracle, God wasn't involved.
These must be different flavors than I've been associated with.
>
> Methodological naturalism that I refer to concerns doing
>science. Science can draw no conclusions about the healing in Acts 3.
>The conclusion that this healing was a demonstration of God's power is
>not a scientific conclusion, but a philosophical one.
I prefer to seek "rational conclusions" or "true conclusions" or
"best explanations" instead of making the distinctions you suggest,
separating science off from the rest of life.
>That depends entirely on your philosophical and theological
>presuppositions. Personally, I don't think God was significantly more
>involved in performing the miracle than he is the rest of the time, but
>I am willing to be taught otherwise.
Maybe not "significantly more involved" but the healthy man (who
used to be a lame man) might disagree. His life was changed!
Craig Rusbult