Subject: (urth) natural theology, argument from design, Wolfe, and other matters

From: Daniel Fusch <dfusch at hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 23:57:35 +0000

(snip)
"I believe you are referring to "natural theology" or the argument from 
design, which is the belief that since the world was created by a 
supernatural being, we (humans) can detect the hand of this god in nature."

I think you may have a few very different things mixed up here.

The "argument from design" is a much more modern theological supposition 
that argues:

1) A design implies the existence of a designer.
2) The universe conforms to an orderly and precise design.
3) The universe implies the existence of its designer.

Natural theology, on the other hand, is a much older and more complex 
ideology. As I understand it, natural theology argues, among other things, 
that because the world was created by a supernatural being, that being can 
intervene in the affairs of the world, producing miracles.

Wolfe, however, is presenting us with a third set of philosophical 
suppositions, quite separate from these other two. (And I don't know whether 
Wolfe is advocating these ideas or not--remember that Wolfe often presents 
us with very different views on theology from different characters at 
different points in the book.) The view here is that:

1) The rational or physical explanation of a miracle does not make the 
miracle less miraculous.

2) A sort of chicken-and-the-egg paradox: did the miracle occur because of a 
particular law of physics, or was that law of physics established because 
the miracle needed to occur? (This is the sort of paradox that Wolfe is 
constantly bringing up.)

The second of these points in a philosophical puzzle. The first point is 
simply romanticism in a nutshell. That is, natural events are wondrous and 
miraculous regardless of their scientific explanation.

Do you remember that chapter in "Charlotte's Web" when Dr. Dorian tells 
Fern's mother that everyone has been so busy debating the recent miracles 
that they've lost sight of the notion that the spider's web itself is a 
miracle? That the spider's web-spinning instinct--and indeed all 
instinct--is itself a miracle? In other words, knowledge of biochemistry 
makes instinct no less miraculous.

Anyway, I think these are the ideologies at work in that passage.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/

---

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 10:03:07 +0000

> intervene in the affairs of the world, producing miracles.

Actually, Natural Theology refers to that which can be learned about God
from nature, as opposed to that which has been learned about God from
revelation.  The term "Natural Theology" was most popular in the 18th and
19th centuries, but the distinction is rooted in Aquinas and the
scholastics.

You are right that the worldview that does not clearly distinguish between
the actions of God and the action of nature goes back even further.  For
instance, in the Hebrew scriptures the prophets frequently give God credit
for natural disasters (the locust plague in Amos), and historical events
(the triumph of Babylon is God's punishment against Israel).  On the other
hand, ancient people also recognized some distinction between a miracle
and an ordinary event.  The story of a virgin giving birth was no easier
to believe because they knew less biology than we do.

-Rostrum