by postodave » June 3rd, 2008, 9:11 am
Hi Mitch
Let me say at once that I have no problem with methodological naturalism. The idea of bringing God in as an alternative to a normal causal explanation is abhorrent to me even to the point that I suspect miracles are really God working through natural causes in ways we do not understand. If anything I would say it is the concept of God as a cause which breaches the boundary between science and religion and along with Clouser I would reject that concept as imprecise.
I have had some further thoughts on your concept of the divine which I has suggested redefining as ''Whatever human beings feel (or intuit) they ought to reach out towards' I wonder whether this definition more accurately fits the sacred rather than the divine. If you then put this definition of the divine alongside Clouser's definition of the divine you get some interesting results. In all of what are usually regarded as the higher religions the sacred and the divine are identified. This seems to be true not only in the theistic religions but also for the non theistic forms of Hinduism and Buddhism, for example the Theravada Buddhist regards Nirvana as divine and sacred. However when you look at pagan (pancosmistic) religion there is a disjunct and the beings regarded as sacred are often not divine as such. It also means an atheist could say, 'I regard matter as divine but not sacred and justice as sacred but not divine.' When an atheist says he is not religious he would then in fact simply be insisting on this disjunct between the sacred and the divine.
I hope your Son is well. On the way in which Medieval thought gives rise to modern science I strongly recommend 'For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery' by Rodney Starkey
So I drew my sword and got ready
But the lamb ran away with the crown