[asa] Re: "horror miraculi"

From: Cameron Wybrow <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed May 13 2009 - 15:09:04 EDT

No, Ted, I wasn't "looking for" any term. I was making one up, out of my
knowledge of Latin. And in fact I originally wrote "horror miraculi"
(horror of miracle, genitive singular), but changed it to "horror
miraculorum" (horror of miracles, genitive plural). Just as I don't need to
have read the ninth Bridgewater Treatise to come up with similar arguments,
so I don't need to have read Hooykaas to have come up with one of his
phrases on my own. :-)

I don't disagree with anything Hooykaas says below. But there is no *a
priori* certainty that the origin of the cosmos or the origin of life or of
species can be explained scientifically, and there is no guarantee that
scientists won't be banging their heads against a steel wall if they try to
do so. Should scientists be permitted to try to explain origins
naturalistically? Absolutely. Do they have the right to assume that
naturalistic explanations will be forthcoming? Absolutely not.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>; "Cameron Wybrow" <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 2:50 PM
Subject: "horror miraculi"

> The term you are looking for, Cameron, is "horror miraculi", and it was
> coined by the late R. Hookaas in his terrific little book, "Natural Law
> and
> Divine Miracle" (1959), on p. 162. I can't type in the whole section to
> provide the appropriate context, but I will copy this much (below).
> "Things that matter much in human life, 'good' and 'bad', 'beautiful' and
> 'ugly', do not even exist in the world of science. Similarly, there is no
> place for anything 'miraculous' or 'supernatural' in the scientific
> system.
> Science never affirms these things: if a miracle were encountered, either
> a
> more comprehensive law would be sought to account also for this irregular
> event, or it would be explained away, or it would be reckoned among the
> events 'not yet explained'. Methodologically, science regards everything
> seemingly miraculous as subject to some natural law, it makes Simon
> Stevin's
> motto its own: 'wonder en is geen wonder' (wonder is no wonder).
> On the other hand, science does not *deny* 'miracle either, just as it
> does
> not deny moral law or aesthetic feeling; it is simply blind to them."
> Good stuff, recommended to all and not just to Cameron.
> Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed May 13 15:09:49 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 13 2009 - 15:09:49 EDT