mdb@aicchi.UUCP (Blackwell) (09/29/86)
In article <629@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> gary@sphinx.UUCP (Gary Buchholz) writes: > > It is certainly an amazing thing to hear a "Supernaturalist" >(supernatural: of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is >explainable by natural law or phenomena) both calling its >theories/stories "scientific" (scientific/science: a branch of >knowledge or study dealing with with body of facts or truths >systematically arranged and showing the operation of GENERAL LAWS) >and at the same time decrying evolution (a scientific theory open >to revision) as "irrational". > >Irrationality would almost characterize any Supernaturalist explanation >since by definition it is law-less. ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^ I have a problem with this. The assumption here seems to be that the GENERAL LAWS are complete cannot be 'broken'. We must remember that the 'general laws' are just observations. Every time we drop an apple it falls to the ground. So we come up with the 'law' of gravity. However, lack of a counter-example is not proof of non-existence. There *may* be some rare case where we drop an apple and it goes up, or sideways, or just stays put! So it is with all our 'general laws.' Our 'laws' are generalisations; models to help us understand. Now to the point: To say that something is 'supernatural' (see above definition) is *not* necessarily saying that it is 'lawless'. It is quite possible that the problem lies in our understanding of nature at the time of the 'supernatural' event. C.S. Lewis argues in his book, "Miracles", that supernatural occurances (ie. miracles) are not a result of the laws of nature being broken, but are the invocation of just those parts of the "*real* laws of nature" that our generalised 'general laws' do not cover! In short, the two *can* co-exist, and a 'supernaturalist' can invoke sience, without implying irrationality. Mike Blackwell ihnp4!aicchi!mdb -- -- Mike Blackwell ..ihnp4!aicchi!mdb
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (10/01/86)
From: mdb@aicchi.UUCP (Blackwell): >To say that something is 'supernatural' (see above definition) is *not* >necessarily saying that it is 'lawless'. It is quite possible that the >problem lies in our understanding of nature at the time of the 'supernatural' >event. C.S. Lewis argues in >his book, "Miracles", that supernatural occurances (ie. miracles) are not >a result of the laws of nature being broken, but are the invocation of >just those parts of the "*real* laws of nature" that our generalised >'general laws' do not cover! > >In short, the two *can* co-exist, and a 'supernaturalist' can invoke >sience, without implying irrationality. But this definition of "supernatural" implies that there is some sort of Higher Law that even God is bound by. This may in fact be true, but most who believe in the supernatural would dispute it. Their definition of supernatural IS lawless. Miracles happen by the Will of God, and are bound by nothing else. So I think "lawless" is closer to the consensus definition than yours is. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry
cc@locus.ucla.edu (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev) (10/02/86)
Blackwell at some point states >... supernatural occurances (ie. miracles) are not >a result of the laws of nature being broken, but are the invocation of >just those parts of the "*real* laws of nature" that our generalised >'general laws' do not cover! In article <1686@ames.UUCP> barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) responds: > But this definition of "supernatural" implies that there >is some sort of Higher Law that even God is bound by. This may >in fact be true, but most who believe in the supernatural would >dispute it. Their definition of supernatural IS lawless. "Supernatural" (and magic), as viewed by most Neo-Pagans, conforms to the ideas to which Blackwell seems to subscribe. Such view, consistent with Ritual Magic concepts and WitchCraft, and presupposes non-existance of a "Supreme Being" which is uncontrollable and not bound by any laws (as most (all?) monotheistic deities appear to be). It would seem to me that the conflict between this "definition" and prevalent interpretation of "supernatural" arises only when a Jewdeo-Xtian (and Islamic) theology is taken as a basis for the analysis. Now, what WAS Blackwell trying to say??? Oleg Kiselev HASA, "A" division