I get you. I have not read Russell in depth, but I would certainly not go as far as he does here. As I said, there are many different points where God could be working.
@jongarvey, thank you for engaging with me so far. On the whole, I think our positions are not that far apart - we both agree on the inadequacy of scientism, the need for better engagement with philosophy (although I still would emphasize that it’s a two-way street - theologians and philosophers should engage scientists more seriously too), and the need for an open mind regarding divine involvement in the universe, as opposed to holding to a dogmatic deism.
I think the only area where we substantially differ is that I am skeptical of prematurely declaring a less understood part of nature as an example of the inadequacy of science - even in my bullet point list above I would be unsurprised (and excited) if some of those problems could be solved, or at least transformed by further empirical and philosophical inquiry. (This is also why I am not very convinced by ID-type arguments against evolution.)
@dga471 I put any remaining disagreement to your professional bias!
The longer I’m retired, the more I see the limitations of my own (medical) professional mindset.
My point all along, in that regard, is that the person who is convinced that materialism explains everything, and the person who knows that there is “more in heaven and earth than is dreamed of” will almost inevitably develop somewhat different criteria of investigation.
On the one hand, the materialist, confronted with some miraculous event, might be more dogged in investigation, to find a purely natural explanation.
This is much to be desired. Daniel’s remarks were in the context of the dedicated scientist though: whilst such remains a materialist, we see him working all hours in the lab to sort out the problem!