Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!husc6!seismo!lll-crg!nike!sri-spam!parcvax!hplabs!tektronix!reed!psu-cs!omepd!max
From: max@omepd (Max Webb)
Newsgroups: talk.religion
Subject: Re: supernatural events
Message-ID: <108@omepd>
Date: Tue, 12-Aug-86 01:38:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: omepd.108
Posted: Tue Aug 12 01:38:02 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 16-Aug-86 00:33:27 EDT
References: <1495@vax135.UUCP> <358@cal-asd.fluke.UUCP>
Reply-To: max@omepd.UUCP (Max Webb)
Organization: Intel Corp. Hillsboro, Oregon
Lines: 27

>Maybe we're better off if NONE of these groups bother with ANY of the
>outlandish claims.  What IS a miracle?  The definition describes an event
>ASSUMED to be of "supernatural" (could someone PLEASE, for the last time,
>define the difference between natural and supernatural without playing
>anthropocentric word games?) origin solely because WE don't understand its
>nature.  (I guess an additional prerequisite is that we like the outcome.  The

One part of the idea of a miracle is a boundary between
the reality we are in, and another reality. This boundary could be
described as 'semi-permeable' in that only rarely do events on the side we
look at have causes on the other side. Another part of the idea is that
the other context is somehow more powerful, and morally superior.
This other context is what one would call the 'supernatural'.

Now, about the only room i see for an accusation of anthropocentrism is
in the words 'morally superior'. You can only make that charge stick if
you show that the idea of some thing/being  being 'morally superior' is
anthropocentric (i assume you mean by that word'revolving around human
interests'). That is a part of the main debate, not an assumption you
can make in your reply.

	Can we talk on talk.religion? it's what i have access to.

Max.

as my good colleague jdl@purdue sez-
'i think these are my opinions -- let me go ask my boss...'