# Clinton Ohlers: Two Parables on Divine Action

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/clinton-ohlers-two-parables-on-divine-action/476>\
**Category:** Office Hours\
**Tags:** Theology\
**Created:** [June 25, 2018, 12:48am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/clinton-ohlers-two-parables-on-divine-action/476 "2018-06-25T00:48:38Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 44

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 4:14pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/clinton-ohlers-two-parables-on-divine-action/476/44 "2018-07-17T16:14:04Z")

</div>

> [@rcohlers](#):
>
> Regarding the inclusion of minds in science, here I disagree with @swamidass that what is involved is a Creator-creation distinction.

It would be interesting to unpack that, because your argument against me is actually for my point. Science is not merely about material things because it includes **_minds_** , which need not be material. The minds of creatures, however, are by definition created. Therefore they are proper causes in science. That shows how the Creation-creation distinction immediately resolves most (all?) demarcation puzzles.

> [@rcohlers](#):
>
> Notice also, that the trend in scientific explanation and those philosophical explanations attempting to accord with science (@jrfarris might weigh in here) has been to reduce human and animal minds to purely material causes.

> [@jrfarris](#):
>
> On another related note, I am not sure understand how everyone is using ‘natural’. I am sympathetic to Clinton’s point that we may not understand enough about nature to know when something is ‘natural’ or not.

That is because, “nature” is poorly defined. I’m defining it as “that which is created,” which is its “true name” in the **house with forgotten names**.

> [@rcohlers](#):
>
> This raises real questions about Lewis’ claim as to which is the larger and more explanatory reality and @Ronald_Cram’s lucid point that:
> 
> ![](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/revealed_cosmology/40/317_1.png) Revealed\_Cosmology:
> 
> > Methodological naturalism must be open to the idea that some set of phenomena may be unexplainable by natural processes or the laws of physics.

@Ronald_Cram is stuck here though. He wants to change science itself, rather acknowledge its limits.

> [@rcohlers](#):
>
> The question then hangs a good deal on scope: @swamidass, do you have an estimate of how pervasive it is among scientists to limit science to a subset of phenomena within our universe, recognizing that there are events within our universe which may genuinely not be natural? Or is it the reverse?

Your right. This is a key question. However it is not phrased sensibly. No one agrees what “nature” or even the “universe” is. A better way to phrase it is, **_“is there important, objective, and knowable truth beyond science?”_**

It seems that the vast majority of scientists quickly come to strong agreement that the answer is “yes,” though it might take a 5 minute conversation to get them there. Scientists are not usually contemplating questions like this. However, the experience of science brings you head long into this truth. _ **Most** _ things we know and care about we know outside of science.

**_That to be clear, is the clear path forward I’m pointing out @jrfarris._**

> [@rcohlers](#):
>
> the Victorian scientific naturalists treated all perceivable reality as within the scope of science.

Now days that is a position only superficially held by scientists

When the absurdity of that position is pointed out (by pointing to the reality of injustice, for example), they are usually sheepish, acknowledging they were making a rhetorical flourish they knew from the get go was wrong. That _Victorian_ view is dead. At least I’ve never met a scientist that maintains this view under even the lightest of questioning from another scientist. It is entertaining to see the mask fall off, and if you watch some Veritas Forums from me, you’ll see it happen: [Veritas Forums the Week Dad Died (January 2018)](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/veritas-forums-the-week-dad-died-january-2018/77).

Thankfully, **_everyone_** now knows that science does not give us a complete view of the world. It is limited. It is incomplete. If there are any lingering Victorian scientists around, they are **_well_** outside the mainstream.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/clinton-ohlers-two-parables-on-divine-action/476)._