Welcome to Terrell Clemmons: Questions on Methodological Naturalism

[DaleCutler]

I would like to return to some discussion about God’s providence, because I think it is relevant here.

Picking up on both @terrellclemmons’ comment,

@terrellclemmons

There is a difference between a set of circumstances that is improbable, and a set of circumstances that is improbable and also performs a function.

The highly improbable set of circumstances regarding the diameter of the moon and the distance between Earth and the sun performs the function of allowing inquisitive, intelligent beings on the earth to observe features of the universe that would be otherwise unobservable.

And @swamidass’,

@swamidass

Many (most?) theologians argue that it is a distortion of the doctrine to think it implies we should be able to objectively demonstrate Gods involvement. To insist otherwise may be a departure from this doctrine.

This is not to preclude the possibility of objective demonstrations at times, but to reject that this the normal or expected way in which God’s providence is manifest.

Cannot Christians – faithful philosophical naturalists need not apply , cannot Christians talk about meaningful events and sets of events as objective demonstrations of God’s interventions?

A father gives an unexpected gift to his child. The outside observer who did not have a loving father and is therefore always suspicious of motives and infers duplicity, equivocation and hypocrisy will not accept the gift as objective evidence of the father’s ‘loving intervention’. The child, however, absolutely will.

I expect that you see where I’m going with this… The Christian will correctly infer, adequately enough for forensic testimony, that meaningful improbable events and sets of improbable events are evidence of God’s interventionist activities and a frequent and predictable M.O., by his design.

Since similar – yes, I’m going to use that word – ‘hypernatural’ events have been recorded – events where no natural laws have been broken – in both Testaments of scripture and in the lives of multiple scores of Christians over the centuries, and hopefully in our own as well, we have basis.

The philosophical naturalist will say that evolution couldn’t happen the same way twice. The Christian who understands God’s sovereignty will say that there are no accidents and can correctly infer design and expect to see it. Prove it scientifically? No, but still know it is true.