From: psb@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Jr Phillip S Buckland)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Agnosticism
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:16:52 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University

smaurer@artin.helios.nd.edu (sean maurer) writes:

[much removed to address the gist of a specific point.  My personal style
is rather formal.  Please do not infer condescension.  None is intended.]

>Agnosticism
> or Why I am an Agnostic

[deletions]

>	There are two possible versions of God.  One who created the
>universe and now sits back and watches it go like a top or a set of
>dominoes, the other a personal god who knocks down the walls of
>Jericho and answers personal prayers.  [No use for 1st kind]
>The second version
>seems wrong to me because he violates all the laws of the universe.
				       ^^^

[with tongue slightly in cheek ;-)]

	I, for one, am hardly able to state with certainty that I know
	the entire set of laws which governs the operation of the universe.
	To be able to know this implies omniscience, but I doubt that either
	you or I qualify for such a grand appellation.  [out of cheek]

	Further, what is
	commonly referred to as "law" in the realm of nature is a theory
	or model for the behavior which is observed which has no known
	exceptions.  "Law" as we know it is subject to revision as our
	ability to describe the universe around us changes.

	At best, it can be said that a personal God who intervenes in the
	universe breaks some of the "laws" which we use to describe the
	natural world.  Is it because our understanding of the universe
	is limited or is it because the personal God involved is unbound
	by the natural laws which bind us?  Or is it some combination of
	these (and other factors)?

>It makes the world intractable.  If miracles can happen, we can't rely
>on any constants remaining so.

	This conclusion doesn't follow for the simple reason that the
	_character_ of the "violator" (as if it is somehow "wrong" for
	God to act in ways we do not understand!) is omitted.  Were the
	character of a personal god capricious, we would know so by the
	changes in the fundamental constants as a result of said god's
	intervention.  Since the fundamental constants don't change
	much (I recall seeing a revised list of constants some 5 years ago
	or so, indicating that our models of reality are more closely
	approximating that reality, not that the constants are changing),
	then a personal god (if one exists) is not capricious.  Or, if
	such a god is capricious, our own natures change instantaneously
	upon the whim of this god and we remain unaware of this god's
	capriciousness.

	Needless to say, I do not believe that the personal God described
	in the Bible is capricious in the manner described above.

>We canUt look at evidence and assume
>that it didn't just appear out of thin air as part of a miracle.

	Even were we able to accurately model and describe natural behavior
	which we observe, we cannot state authoritatively that no miracles
	were involved unless our definition of "miracle" precludes that
	which can be described.  And if we adopt this definition, we are
	saying that not only are we unable to fathom miracles, but that
	they don't exist _by definition_.  Has not science forced this
	dualism down our collective throats?  "Miracles do not exist; what
	purports to be a miracle is only a reflection of our (as of yet)
	limited understanding.  Ultimately, we will evolve to understand
	these things and look back upon such superstitious beliefs with
	amusement."

	I do not accept that science and a personal god must
	of necessity be divorced.  What we perceive of reality is
	not binding or limiting upon reality itself; it only binds us.

	In past exchanges I have had with others, I have come across the
	curious notion that if God acts without violating the laws of
	nature as we know them that a miracle has not occurred.  Such a
	position is indefensible, for it ignores other factors such as
	the timing of supposedly "natural" events to address real needs.
	For example, is it a miracle if one prays for money to meet a severe
	financial need and to have that money given anonymously?  I'd say so,
	even though there is no appearance of the violation of natural law.
	Another example, of a more personal nature: is the discovery of an
	ovarian cyst during a prenatal sonogram a miracle, given that the
	cyst has been in existence for some time and was not revealed during
	normal examinations?  I'd say so.  The _timing_ of the pregnancy of
	my first son may very well have saved the life of my wife and his
	mother.  No natural laws were broken that I know of, yet a miracle
	due to God's providence occurred.  There is more to this personal
	anecdote which leads me to this conclusion but which I do not think
	ought to be shared as this reply is long enough as it is.  8-)

>A
>god that intervenes destroys our ability to discover order in the
>universe.

	As demonstrated above, this conclusion is drawn from faulty premises
	and is faulty as a result.

	*If* there exists a personal god, such as the one described in the
	Bible, it would make sense to claim that this god is intimately
	involved in the processes which make up what we call "natural law"
	(otherwise, a god who is not involved in these processes would be
	more akin to the impersonal one which kicks the universe in the
	seat of the pants and then watches it run all by itself).

	From the perspective of a personal god of this kind, what we call
	"science" (and what we in our arrogance aver is seperate from all
	religious considerations) is a *subset* of the behavior or will or
	actions of this personal god.  A god which intervenes then becomes
	*essential* to the definition of "science", for it is out of the
	unchanging character of such a god that descriptions which we can
	understand are able to be formulated.

>A god that doesn't intervene is indistinguishable from a
>god that doesn't exist.

	This is also fallacious.  Such a god of indifference wouldn't care
	whether any evidence of its existence was available to us.  So,
	given enough time, we would ultimately come to discover such
	evidence, leading to the conclusion that an indifferent god _does_
	exist (after all, if such a god took pains to _remove_ all evidence
	of its existence, it would hardly be indifferent, would it?  ;-)
	I realize that I have concluded that a noninterventionist god is
	indifferent, but I believe that such a conclusion is warranted.


We read the world wrong		| Phil Buckland
and say that it deceives us.	| psb@eece.ksu.edu
Tagore, from Stray Birds	| psb@matt.ksu.ksu.edu