RE: [asa] Re: "horror miraculi"(meaning)

From: Dehler, Bernie <>
Date: Wed May 13 2009 - 17:53:16 EDT

I don't think it really matters to say whether science has 'constraints' on determining 'purpose' or 'helps to determine the purpose' - the point is that science has some sort of influence, as does modern history, on understanding our world which also shapes our idea of purpose. To the extent that people are ignorant of science and history, they will also be deficit to that extent in their worldview, since they are lacking valuable input to form their worldview.

For Christians- this applies to those who claim "to know only the Bible" or when you hear a church say "we teach only the Bible." It sounds noble- but it is fatal to a healthy understanding of the world and theology. When I hear people say "I've read the Bible 100 times, and I'm going through it again" I feel like saying "why don't you take a break and also read some theology books and science books?" People who study the Bible like that are becoming experts on a subset of reality, but all subsets (Bible, science, history, etc.) are affected by other subsets, which they aren't privy to, since they focus on the Bible only. Because they dwell on a subset, they can be more cocky and self-secure in their theology. The more they expose themselves to the world (Bible, theology, history, science), the more they will see it is NOT black and white. It takes a lot of faith and courage to explore other ideas, but that attribute isn't usually lifted-up in church culture, out of fe!
 ar of losing the faith, I suppose. And that kind of fear is a SIN... being cowardly. In Revelation, the cowards are thrown into hell.


-----Original Message-----
From: []
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 1:36 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Subject: RE: [asa] Re: "horror miraculi"(meaning)

Bernie, I am not sure what is the meaning of "meaning of the world", but
whatever it means would it not be better to say that science provides some
constraints on it rather than determines it?

> Quote of Max Weber:
> ""Who - aside from certain big children who are indeed found in the
> natural sciences - still believes that the findings of astronomy, biology,
> physics, or chemistry could teach us anything about the meaning of the
> world?"
> The scientific findings could teach us a lot about 'meaning.' With the
> findings, we can create a base from which to judge subsequent beliefs.
> For example, with the knowledge of DNA evidence for evolution, we now know
> that the literal idea of God forming humans from a pile of dirt is a myth.
> From there, we interpret the Bible accordingly (which affects one's
> understanding of "meaning of the world"). These scientific root facts
> affect the leaves on our theological tree. The leaves draw their energy
> from these roots. Those who choose to remain ignorant of these modern
> facts (or ignorant of detailed theology) don't have to worry about their
> theology changing or being affected by the sciences, so they don't
> understand how science can affect theology.
> Science doesn't tell us anything, directly, about the meaning of the
> world; but it does contribute to a cloud of facts that help us determine
> the meaning of the world. The quote is going overboard in trying to
> suggest science brings nothing to the table when determining 'meaning.'
> And people who are ignorant of the interplay between science and religion
> readily agree to that overstatement (some may agree to it simply because
> they didn't think it through carefully).
> ...Bernie
> ________________________________
> From: [] On
> Behalf Of Gregory Arago
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:26 PM
> To:; Cameron Wybrow
> Subject: Re: [asa] Re: "horror miraculi"
> Excellent! A turn of phrase that turned out to have 'multiple origins.'
> :0)
> Let me add to the thoughts expressed by the authors mentioned this
> contribution by Max Weber:
> "Who - aside from certain big children who are indeed found in the natural
> sciences - still believes that the findings of astronomy, biology,
> physics, or chemistry could teach us anything about the meaning of the
> world? If there is any such 'meaning,' along what road could one come upon
> its tracks? If these natural sciences lead to anything in this way, they
> are apt to make the belief that there is such a thing as the 'meaning' of
> the universe die out at its very roots." ("Science as a Vocation." 1919)
> And this coming from a scholar who was not anti-science!
> Gregory
> --- On Wed, 5/13/09, Cameron Wybrow <> wrote:
> From: Cameron Wybrow <>
> Subject: [asa] Re: "horror miraculi"
> To:
> Received: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 11:09 PM
> 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.
> Cameron.
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Davis"
> <<>>
> To:
> <<>>;
> "Cameron Wybrow"
> <<>>
> 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
> with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> ________________________________
> Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo!
> Answers.<>

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed May 13 17:53:54 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 13 2009 - 17:53:54 EDT