Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!rutgers!caip!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!aicchi!mdb
From: mdb@aicchi.UUCP (Blackwell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: A reply to Stuart Gathman
Message-ID: <813@aicchi.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Sep-86 16:02:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: aicchi.813
Posted: Mon Sep 29 16:02:05 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 2-Oct-86 20:17:50 EDT
References: <203@BMS-AT.UUCP> <629@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Reply-To: mdb@aicchi.UUCP (Blackwell)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
Organization: Analysts International Corp; Chicago Branch
Lines: 46
Xref: linus talk.religion.misc:327 talk.philosophy.misc:112
Summary: supernatural != lawless/unscientific
Flames: /dev/null

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