gary@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Gary Buchholz) (10/01/86)
In article <813@aicchi.UUCP> mdb@aicchi.UUCP (Blackwell) writes: >In article <629@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> gary@sphinx.UUCP (Gary Buchholz) writes: >> >>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. You have a really bizzare notion of Physics. For the solar system to be as stable as it is now, and in the past for as long as men in recorded history have been making observations the "law(s)" of physics as we know them (not just gravity) will have had to work the same and be valid for every nanosecond since the birth of our system. If not, then the whole mess would have "crashed" by now. The fact that we can "run the calculations backwards" and verify some astronomical observation in 2400 BC is good evidence that the "laws" don't "pop in" and "pop out" as you claim. The only thing that cannot cannot be verified is that some OT wacko claimed that the sun stood still. > > 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! Gods dealing Job is certainly proof that the guy calling the shots is as capricious as one can get. It was kind of a bet between God and the other guys upstairs to see if Job would give up his faith. So God does all these nasty things to Job and Job knows it. Job even asks God to account to the things he has done. The response from God is "Who are you - mere man" [to question the deity]. Gods act of violence on Job was clearly law-less. He did want he wanted and I doubt if he consulted "natural law" on the matter. You and Lewis are right - the "general laws" do not cover what God did to Job but it is too much to say that what happened to Job was "the real basis of nature". Nature is not that cruel. >In short, the two *can* co-exist, and a 'supernaturalist' can invoke >sience, without implying irrationality. > Mike Blackwell > ihnp4!aicchi!mdb You've got to be kidding. A scientist invoking supernaturalism is a candidate for the madhouse. Gary