Re: Limits of Methodological naturalism

From: dfsiemensjr@juno.com
Date: Wed Jul 05 2000 - 21:49:17 EDT

  • Next message: Joel Z Bandstra: "RE: intelligent design"

    On Wed, 5 Jul 2000 16:24:26 -0400 bivalve@email.unc.edu (David Campbell)
    writes:
    > >how does one stipulate limitations upon what can be explained by
    > natural
    > >causes without either begging the question or drawing boundaries
    > arbitrarily?
    >
    > Metaphysical considerations may provide some boundaries.
    > Christianity
    > posits that the resurrection of Christ was supernatural, for
    > example. If
    > you believe that the purpose of direct divine action such as the
    > Biblical
    > miracles is as a part of special revelation, then there is
    > theological
    > reason to not expect direct divine action in general creation.
    >
    There is the problem of identifying miracles in connection with natural
    explanations. There is no natural explanation for the virgin birth or the
    resurrection of Christ. They form a special class. But, if my memory
    serves, there is a sill across the upper end of the Gulf of Suez which
    may be uncovered by a steadily blowing wind. When the wind dies, the
    water returns rapidly. This is a plausible natural explanation for the
    passage of Israel on dry ground and the drowning of the pursuing
    Egyptians. Similarly, the crossing of Jordan _may_ have involved a
    landslide upstream temporarily damming the flow. So it may be that the
    timing of natural events is the miracle. The same may be said of the she
    bears that killed those who mocked Elisha.

    IMO, the creation of the universe is held by all Christians to be
    essentially like the special class. The argument from ID/PC is that the
    initiation of life and many of its differentiations is similar. TE holds
    that this latter group is more like the timing of natural events.

    There is a further similarity in this last to the Red Sea matter. It was
    fairly recently that the sill was found and a natural explanation
    proposed. It was not dreamed of earlier. TE does not have explanations
    for all of the life and development scenario, but expects that more will
    be found. But, as the sill does not deny that God acted, so the natural
    explanations do not require atheism.

    Dave



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 05 2000 - 22:58:18 EDT