{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/1920",
    "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it.  Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.",
    "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'"
  },
  "archive": "urth",
  "thread": {
    "id": 1920,
    "subject": "natural theology, argument from design, Wolfe, and other matters",
    "messages": 2,
    "voices": 2,
    "first": "1999-11-04T23:57:35+00:00",
    "last": "1999-11-05T10:03:07+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0028-0380@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Daniel Fusch",
        "address": "dfusch at hotmail.com"
      },
      "date": "1999-11-04T23:57:35+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) natural theology, argument from design, Wolfe, and other matters",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Jeremy:\n\n(snip)\n\"I believe you are referring to \"natural theology\" or the argument from \ndesign, which is the belief that since the world was created by a \nsupernatural being, we (humans) can detect the hand of this god in nature.\"\n\nI think you may have a few very different things mixed up here.\n\nThe \"argument from design\" is a much more modern theological supposition \nthat argues:\n\n1) A design implies the existence of a designer.\n2) The universe conforms to an orderly and precise design.\n3) The universe implies the existence of its designer.\n\nNatural theology, on the other hand, is a much older and more complex \nideology. As I understand it, natural theology argues, among other things, \nthat because the world was created by a supernatural being, that being can \nintervene in the affairs of the world, producing miracles.\n\nWolfe, however, is presenting us with a third set of philosophical \nsuppositions, quite separate from these other two. (And I don't know whether \nWolfe is advocating these ideas or not--remember that Wolfe often presents \nus with very different views on theology from different characters at \ndifferent points in the book.) The view here is that:\n\n1) The rational or physical explanation of a miracle does not make the \nmiracle less miraculous.\n\n2) A sort of chicken-and-the-egg paradox: did the miracle occur because of a \nparticular law of physics, or was that law of physics established because \nthe miracle needed to occur? (This is the sort of paradox that Wolfe is \nconstantly bringing up.)\n\nThe second of these points in a philosophical puzzle. The first point is \nsimply romanticism in a nutshell. That is, natural events are wondrous and \nmiraculous regardless of their scientific explanation.\n\nDo you remember that chapter in \"Charlotte's Web\" when Dr. Dorian tells \nFern's mother that everyone has been so busy debating the recent miracles \nthat they've lost sight of the notion that the spider's web itself is a \nmiracle? That the spider's web-spinning instinct--and indeed all \ninstinct--is itself a miracle? In other words, knowledge of biochemistry \nmakes instinct no less miraculous.\n\nAnyway, I think these are the ideologies at work in that passage."
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0028-0384@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Michael Straight",
        "address": "straight at email.unc.edu"
      },
      "date": "1999-11-05T10:03:07+00:00",
      "subject": "Re: (urth) natural theology, argument from design, Wolfe, and other matters",
      "in_reply_to": "<urth-v0028-0380@digest.urth.net>",
      "reply_link": "subject",
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Daniel Fusch wrote:\nNatural theology, on the other hand, is a much older and more complex \nideology. As I understand it, natural theology argues, among other things, \nthat because the world was created by a supernatural being, that being can \nintervene in the affairs of the world, producing miracles."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Actually, Natural Theology refers to that which can be learned about God\nfrom nature, as opposed to that which has been learned about God from\nrevelation.  The term \"Natural Theology\" was most popular in the 18th and\n19th centuries, but the distinction is rooted in Aquinas and the\nscholastics.\n\nYou are right that the worldview that does not clearly distinguish between\nthe actions of God and the action of nature goes back even further.  For\ninstance, in the Hebrew scriptures the prophets frequently give God credit\nfor natural disasters (the locust plague in Amos), and historical events\n(the triumph of Babylon is God's punishment against Israel).  On the other\nhand, ancient people also recognized some distinction between a miracle\nand an ordinary event.  The story of a virgin giving birth was no easier\nto believe because they knew less biology than we do.\n\n-Rostrum"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}