This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-faith-and-science-seeking-understanding/miracles-and-science-a-third-way-part-1
Thanks for this first installment.
I’ve heard it suggested that it was Schleiermacher who virtually set the tone for theology for much of the next two centuries --with his very Kantian (Descartian) starting point of the interior experience. And since then, much of our Christian program has been all about “giving speeches to our cultured despisers”. In other words, (as I’ve heard it put), we are coming to those who we deem to be cultured critics who don’t like us; and we approach them hat-in-hand, hoping to convince them on their terms what sort of interior experience we recommend they dredge up to help convince them of the merit of religion.
According to at least one contemporary Catholic theologian (and now Bishop) many great theologians (Catholic and Protestant alike) have since raced down that “Schleiermacherian autobahn” --until recently. Others since (He cites Balthasar) have now taken some of the positive aspects of post-modernity and used it to break up that log jam of modernism and to deliberately challenge (not follow) that same subjectivist path. Or as I heard it elaborated regarding Balthasar and the other great Catholic theologian, Rahner: “Rahner went with Kant; Balthasar went with Goethe”.
And where Baltazar went … is very interesting indeed. It will be interesting to compare how your third way (weaving between Schleiermacher and Hume) compares with some of this contemporary Catholic theological direction.
(My source for these thoughts was the Fr. Robert Barron in a speech he gave to a Catholic Conference in 2012.)
I prefer to go back to the Biblical meaning of the word “miracle,” which is “sign.”
In a true sense all events are signs in one sense or another. What we call miracles are usually signs of the power of God, which can take many forms.