Tell me why supernatural explanations of phenomena should be considered.

I'd really like the opportunity some time to run you through the gospel wringer as it were, and either persuade you or find out why you won't be persuaded. I agree with Iano that you're so close to the edge it's hard to understand why you haven't fallen in --considering your interest in theology and in fact your rather jaundiced view of the human condition, which is where I also started before becoming a believer. (But of course I have to admit there are many of the jaundiced persuasion who never become believers so there's no necessary correlation).I MAY HAVE TO BECOME ADMIN FAITH AT SOME POINT AND UPBRAID MYSELF FOR ALL THIS OFF-TOPICKING.

I'm not sure that's what he said. His comment was about "logic and evidence" rather than about "everything that we observe and can measure". There may be a lot that remains unexplained about what we observe and measure (i.e. the universe). But there isn't anything mysterious about logic and evidence. No, I didn't take him as saying that. I took him as saying that there unexplained mysteries behind logic and evidence, and that these could indicate that science is not built on a sound foundation. My disagreement was with that. I have no problem with the idea that there is much unknown in the world, but I am challenging his apparent view that this poses a problem for scientific methodology. I will have to disagree with you on that. In any case, I can comment on that a little more when I respond to iano. My comment was that the division into natural and supernatural is arbitrary and capricious. What is supernatural today might well be natural tomorrow. By tying itself to the supernatural, evangelical christianity is painting itself into an ever shrinking corner. I could agree with that. Yet YEC fundamentalists do repeatedly attempt to inject supernatural considerations into science.

You can run me through the wringer any time you like--although a "gospel wringer" sounds rather painful. Great to have you back,
Faith. I missed you. This is something that might be pursued--the nearness in a sense between nihilism and belief: both find what I call "humanistic piety" false. I think that's a very good idea. You have a knack for sparking up a forum.

Nothing will change, except that maybe we won't have the words to describe it in that way. That's where I disagree.To a first approximation, I am saying that description is impossible. So a great deal of science goes into making description possible. And much (but not all) of what we consider to be laws of nature are really accounts of the empirical principles we construct so as to make description possible. That's a good illustration of what I was saying. Historically, this is what has happened. Religion has partly been the folk science of a pre-scientific era. The old testament dietary laws were, in effect, the nutrition science of the time. The genesis account of creation is an early folk science explanation of origins. The "tower of babel" story was an early folk science explanation of the existence of multiple languages.

Depends on what you mean by "supernatural." To my mind, the best definition is "incorporeal."

And what's the best definition of "incorporeal?"Is a magnetic field incorporeal?Are numbers incorporeal? Are numbers supernatural?

Materialism tells us that anything that is real is corporeal.So if we are materialists, everything is corporeal, including what you mentioned above.Supernaturalism is dependent on dualism (or, in some case, idealism).According to supernaturalists, there are 2 types of realities: the corporeal and the incorporeal.Science denies the incorporeal.

Well, Gary...about all I can say is that I have experienced what I believe was a supernatural (or unexplained natural) event...thats why I can accept supernatural explanations as plausible, although rare. There is no way to prove them, and you have every rational reason for rejecting the possibility. To you, it is as if a magic elf appeared!To me, the event was much more intense. Perhaps all such events can be explained naturally, but in my mind, perhaps not.

I certainly do not believe that numbers are real. Nor do I believe that they are supernatural. It would be strange to say that the natural numbers are supernatural.I would guess that mathematical realists (those whose philosophy of mathematics says that numbers are real) would not consider numbers to be corporeal.I mentioned magnetic fields, because there are philosophical disputes over their nature. I could have raised the same point by asking about the status of a center of gravity or center of mass. These are often considered to be theoretical terms, things constructed to satisfy their role in a theory, but not in any sense corporeal.

Me neither. But if they are real, they are supernatural, being incorporeal. Here is where the belief in the supernatural comes from.

Aah theology...real wood for the trees territory. You ever read anything from Martyn Lloyd Jones? He's a fantastic expositor. Very detailed but in a way that lays the whole thing out and leaves few if any escape hatches. He does a fantastic series on Romans. About 300 pages of per chapter of Romans - so you have been warned.Am turning tail on the drinking myself. I find it gets me into too much trouble.

And doing what she does best here. Putting folk through the gospel wringer. The gospel itself isn't painful. It's life outside the gospel that is painful. I'm delighted you see human piety as worthless (probably because it suffers from the fatal weakness of being self-defined). That leaves you with nihilism. And the honest nihilist, who truly lives with the consequences of that philosophy has only one option open to him. Insanity.Or something else. And as far as I know the only show in town must be the precise opposite of nihilism. Superabounding purpose. Supernatural purpose. Chose that and everyone will call you insane. Not that you would care in the least.Painful? Either way it is. Only one is exquisitely so. So pleasurably painful it would make you catch your breath. It was the same with me Faith. The resistance of anything that breaks is greatest just before it breaks. And if Robin has read around CS Lewis at all he will know that he too came kicking and screaming. I remember he described himself along the lines of "the most reluctant convert ever"

Any other of my hobbies you'd like to stomp on? Like bird watching? Can't see the woods for the birds.

Me stomping on another hobbies? Never. I like theology too but sometimes I see more trees that wood. I can get wrapped up in understanding the mechanisms of God rather than the purpose of the mechanisms of God. I like drinking too (except it gets me into trouble). Bird watching. Do you mean the lustful type or the other...

You know, Iano--if I may speak frankly--I've gathered from our discussions that the distance that separates you from nihilism can be compared to the thickness of a piece of tissue paper. It is but a brief step across a tiny ditch, a minute mental maneuver.Why not take that small step? Don't put it off. Don't say to yourself, "Tomorrow I will think about it, or next week, or next month." For the years roll by, and one day it will be too late.I urge you to make that choice--now, here, today--in the presence of these witnesses.You will enter a new and colorful world.The Truth shall set you free.