V6M@PSUVM.BITNET (02/14/85)
<<>> Dear Rich, Did you ever get my netmail??? I don't understand about "writing in your absence". Any article in which I mentioned you I assumed that you would read, along with half of the civilized world in the electronic village. BTW everybody I DID apologize to Rich over my ascerbic comments. I really have been trying to be better. Now Sean on the other hand.....makes me look saintly. Now that you are reading this Rich. What is your position on miracles? The Roman Church goes to GREAT LENGTHS (it's in N.Dakota) to prove physically that a miracle took place. We do this by trying to prove that no known physical laws could have accounted for said miracle. Here we try to use science to prove that an occurance has no PHYSICAL explanation and MUST have come from God. We have three basic sources for things NATURE and therfore explainable by science GOD and the saints and angels for supernatural good things like grace and help DEVIL for supernatural bad things like Demonic Possession and temptations (see life ain't so difficult or complicated :-) ) I KNOW that you define away God, angels, saints and devils. But what about explaining things that science can't? One way of looking of looking at miracles is an "experiment" which proves something by arguing to a contradiction. Something like this: We want to prove that there is a God that has multiple properties. We agree that science explains the natural and it does so COMPLETELY. There are two planes of existence the natural and the supernatural. Our God rules all of existence (this is one of His properties above). We observe an occurrance that science CANNOT explain therefore it is not in the natural plane. There is only one plane left so it must be from God and supernatural since natural forces (weather for example) obey scientific laws and man accounts for other happenings also obeying scientific laws (unless it is a metaphysical problem which are not the point here since miracles are NOT metaphysical events). I grant that the above may be oversimplified but I would appreciate your comments. REALLY!!!!!!! Vince V6M@PSUVM.BITNET
cjh@petsd.UUCP (Chris Henrich) (02/19/85)
[] The subject of miracles interests me, and seems to be just right for this group; so I will respond to some of Vince's remarks. (Apologies if I duplicate someone else's comments: articles do not get to me in chrono or any other kind of logical order.) > The Roman Church goes to GREAT LENGTHS (it's in N.Dakota) to > prove physically that a miracle took place. We do this by trying to prove > that no known physical laws could have accounted for said miracle. ... > We agree that science explains the natural and it does so COMPLETELY. I don't agree... having watched scientists in action and (for a while) been one, I think this states an ideal goal, very far from being realized. Something like saying "Lubrication eliminates friction and does so COMPLETELY." There are always uncertainties, unfinished business, and apparent contradictions on the fringes of science. At least once (in the late nineteenth century) it seemed to some scientists that all the basic principles had been discovered and what remained was merely refinement of what was already known. Then relativity and quantum mechanics busted it all up. Count on surprises. This is relevant to the question of miracles because an event that science(1985) cannot deal with at all may be understandable to science(20??) or even science(1986). > There are two planes of existence the natural and the supernatural. This picture makes me very uneasy. Not that I wish to lose the distinction between natural and supernatural, but just that I don't believe the implications of "two planes" capture that distinction at all well. Two "planes" after all are two of the same general kind of ideas; I think "natural" and "supernatural" are not so symmetrically related. If the latter plane stays above the former (that's what "super" means after all) then they are parallel and don't meet: the God of the Philosophers is away off there, thinking about pure thought or something, and utterly beyond any interaction with the "natural." The image of the two planes seems to me to go back to Plato, and to originate in his cosmology which was very strictly divided at the orbit of the Moon. Down below all is changeable, imperfect, irregular, subject to decay; up there, all is eternal, perfect, regular, and sublime. There is no way for the two realms to meet. If we let this image rule our theology, then we cannot account for God's deigning to notice mortal creatures at all - much less _become_ one of them. There are two ways of dealing with this difficulty: (A) Kludge around it. Say that God really didn't create this world, He created a subordinate being called the Demiurge, which then (more or less by mistake) created the material world. Once you start "multiplying entities" like this it is easy to go overboard. I once read something by Jung (the psychologist) in which he arrived at a three-by-three array of intermediate beings. (B) Admit that it doesn't make sense (within the limits of this image) - hoorah! it makes something much better. Maybe the natural plane is embedded in the supernatural space? > Our God rules all of existence (this is one of His properties above). Right on. This is a crucial principle, whether we're arguing about miracles, creationism, or evil and suffering. > We observe an occurrance that science CANNOT explain therefore it is not > in the natural plane. Does "CANNOT" mean "CAN NEVER"? If so, that's a long time to wait before making up our minds. At some point, we must make an Act of Thought (not to mention an Act of Faith) and make up our minds that we recognize God's presence in an event. Peace, Chris -- Full-Name: Christopher J. Henrich UUCP: ..!(cornell | ariel | ukc | houxz)!vax135!petsd!cjh US Mail: MS 313; Perkin-Elmer; 106 Apple St; Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Phone: (201) 870-5853
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (02/19/85)
>Now that you are reading this Rich. What is your position on >miracles? The Roman Church goes to GREAT LENGTHS (it's in N.Dakota) to >prove physically that a miracle took place. We do this by trying to prove >that no known physical laws could have accounted for said miracle. Here we try >to use science to prove that an occurance has no PHYSICAL explanation and MUST >have come from God. This is not a valid application of science. (See below) >We have three basic sources for things > >NATURE and therfore explainable by science >GOD and the saints and angels for supernatural good things like grace and help >DEVIL for supernatural bad things like Demonic Possession and temptations >(see life ain't so difficult or complicated :-) ) The last two are assumptions that are highly questionable. I assume that the point of discussing miracles at all is to gain some insight as to whether or not there exists something outside of nature. If so then you are already assuming what you set out to prove. Otherwise read on. >I KNOW that you define away God, angels, saints and devils. But what >about explaining things that science can't? >One way of looking of looking at miracles is an "experiment" which proves >something by arguing to a contradiction. > >We want to prove that there is a God that has multiple properties. >We agree that science explains the natural and it does so COMPLETELY. >There are two planes of existence the natural and the supernatural. >Our God rules all of existence (this is one of His properties above). >We observe an occurrance that science CANNOT explain therefore it is not >in the natural plane. >There is only one plane left so it must be from God and supernatural since >natural forces (weather for example) obey scientific laws and man accounts for >other happenings also obeying scientific laws (unless it is a metaphysical >problem which are not the point here since miracles are NOT metaphysical >events). Your argument seems to be: 1) Events happen which can't be explained by science. 2) Since they are observed to occur, then there must be something outside of science to explain (and hence cause) them. 3) Therefore, God and the supernatural exist. The flaws in this kind of reasoning are as follows: 1) As you state, you assume that science explains the natural COMPLETELY. This is incorrect. Science makes no claims to explain everything at any stage of developement. 2) To reason that the failure of science to explain an event constitutes proof that the Supernatural exists is grossly in error. All that you can conclude is that our understanding of things leaves much to be desired. For example, in the past, static electricity would have been described as a supernatural event because it could not be explained. Nowadays there are few people who would believe this in the light of advances in our knowledge. In a nutshell- To argue that "we can't explain this event. Hence...." is an argument that is literally based on ignorance. Because of the above flaws this argument fails to show the existence of anything outside of Nature. Incidentally, would you consider the "miracles" that "occur" at Lourdes good examples (in the sense that they "prove" your point?)
hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (02/21/85)
> Dear Rich, > > Did you ever get my netmail??? > > I don't understand about "writing in your absence". Any article in which > I mentioned you I assumed that you would read, along with half of the > civilized world in the electronic village. > > BTW everybody I DID apologize to Rich over my ascerbic comments. I really > have been trying to be better. > > Now Sean on the other hand.....makes me look saintly. > > Now that you are reading this Rich. What is your position on > miracles? The Roman Church goes to GREAT LENGTHS (it's in N.Dakota) to > prove physically that a miracle took place. We do this by trying to prove > that no known physical laws could have accounted for said miracle. Here we try > to use science to prove that an occurance has no PHYSICAL explanation and MUST > have come from God. > > We have three basic sources for things > > NATURE and therfore explainable by science > GOD and the saints and angels for supernatural good things like grace and help > DEVIL for supernatural bad things like Demonic Possession and temptations > (see life ain't so difficult or complicated :-) ) > > I KNOW that you define away God, angels, saints and devils. But what > about explaining things that science can't? > > One way of looking of looking at miracles is an "experiment" which proves > something by arguing to a contradiction. > > Something like this: > > We want to prove that there is a God that has multiple properties. > We agree that science explains the natural and it does so COMPLETELY. > There are two planes of existence the natural and the supernatural. > Our God rules all of existence (this is one of His properties above). > We observe an occurrance that science CANNOT explain therefore it is not > in the natural plane. > There is only one plane left so it must be from God and supernatural since > natural forces (weather for example) obey scientific laws and man accounts for > other happenings also obeying scientific laws (unless it is a metaphysical > problem which are not the point here since miracles are NOT metaphysical > events). > > I grant that the above may be oversimplified but I would appreciate your > comments. REALLY!!!!!!! > > Vince ________________________________________________________________________ MAJOR FALLACIES: 1. You assume that there exists only two modes of existence, NATURAL and SUPERNATURAL. (Try to prove that if you can ... and then prove that they are exclusive, as you try to point out. Obviously, you must first prove that there is such an animal as a supernatural `plane`.) 2. You assume that there exists a God; as opposed to the non-existence of deities or the existence of more than one or the existence of other types of supernatural entities, etc ... (You should ignore any personal assumptions like the existence of God.) 3. Science cannot associate itself with the supernatural. Science contains only the natural sciences. (Do not include things like political science!) I recently read a creationist pamphlet that said that science is moving toward the spiritual rather than the material. WRONG! Spiritual things are by definition beyond the material, which is all that science deals with. I am sure that there are many pseudoscientists that hunt ghosts and prove miracles; they are not real scientists. (Those of you thinking of flaming me for this paragraph should spend your time doing more pro- ductive things. If you think that science does deal with the super- natural, you are hopelessly ignorant. A simple understanding of the definition of natural science and of the scientific method ought to tell you the obvious.) 4. You have managed to incorporate a fallacious argument type. You assume that that which science cannot explain must necessarily be explainable by supernatural means. (Creationists are great at using this false argument, though I am not accusing you of being one of them.) 5. You assume that science is static; that is, the scientific knowledge available now is, always has been, and always will be the same. Therefore, if it cannot be explained now, it is forever beyond science to explain it. This is obviously NOT true. 6. ... In short, you have made many assumptions which are not substantiable in the proper context. (Some of them are impossible to substantiate in any context!) You also made simple analogies using `planes` which may sound great but poorly serve your point. (After all, what, exactly, is a `plane`?! It is certainly not a two-dimensional euclidean plane ... I am 3-D.) You also failed to give any specific example of a so-called `miracle`. So what were you trying to prove? (This is a real question!) Keebler