> It's very important, in the meantime, to not seek to reserve "a place for
> God" by demanding that this or the other thing will never be explainable.
> This has at least three problems: first, as I said earlier it reveals a
> "God of the gaps" point of view -- a monotonically decreasing God.
Also,
> this point of view tends to ignore that God is constantly keeping the
> universe in existence and regulating its processes.
> Lastly, in taking the view that God only works in the unknown concedes the
> argument to the "scientistists" (like that construction? ;{>). A God that
> is *only* present in the things that we can't understand &/or observe is
> one that does not command our attention and can be taken to be irrelevant
> to our lives.
>
Thanks, Bill, for this review of the forgotten doctrine of Providence.
Paul Arveson, Research Physicist
73367.1236@compuserve.com arveson@oasys.dt.navy.mil
(301) 227-3831 (W) (301) 227-1914 (FAX) (301) 816-9459 (H)
Code 724, NSWC, Bethesda, MD 20084