On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 07:48:51 EDT RDehaan237@aol.com writes:
>in small part:
>
> Let me suggest that there are numerous other models or analogies of
> how God
> might freely interact with his creation, assuming as I do that God
> does so..
> You are undoubtedly aware of them. God might act as a gardener with
> creation
> as his garden that develops on its own but also is dependent on
> timely
> watering, harvesting, planting, etc., as I have suggested elsewhere.
> Or
> there is the analogy of God as an author or playwright, with himself
> as one
> of the actors. Creation can be seen as an arena in which God acts,
> sometimes
> directly and sometimes indirectly.
>
There are no end of analogies which one may offer, just as a writer of
science fiction may construct no end of other worlds. But the problem is
that in faction one has to accept the alternates even though they are not
coherent with reality. Analogies similarly have to be analyzed
scientifically or, more often, philosophically and theologically. This is
a complex process. Oversimplifying drastically, the playwright analogy
you suggest seems to me to have two possible outcomes. One is that the
play is written and all play their parts, which is deterministic. The
other is that the play is being made up as it goes along, so that God is
not in charge, which is process theology. I contend that neither is
orthodox.
> The Bible is rich in poetic statements describing God's interaction
> with
> nature, as in Ps. 18, Ps. 65, Job 38. These form the basis of my
> belief that
> God is directly as well as indirectly involved with his creation.
>
> Don't you think God is "tipping his hand so that we must acknowledge
> his
> activity" when Rom. 1:19-20 says, "For what can be known of God is
> plain to
> them (humans), because God has shown it to them. Ever since the
> creation of
> the world his invisible nature, namely his eternal power and deity,
> has been
> clearly perceived in the things that have been made"?
>
This, IMO, overlooks the double reference to the fool in Psalm 14:1 and
53:1, as well as the rest of Paul's statement.
> Since you say, "I am committed to the notion that the universe is
> designed
> intelligently," I do not understand why you object if I and other
> IDers, who
> share this general commitment, try to infer intelligent design in
> particular
> situations, such as, complex biochemical systems and complex
> integrated organ
> systems.
>
> <<Were the latter the case, as Bill Williams remarked the last time
> I saw
> him, we "would have God in a test tube." Any attempt to prove the
> existence
> of God is futile. Augustine had it right in his _credo ut
> intellegam_, which
> echoes the thought of Hebrews 11:6. >>
>
> Who is trying to prove the existence of God? I'm not. I assume
> it, and
> from that assumption I try to infer how he did it. My goal is to
> understand
> the biosphere as a whole, using scientific approaches to the limit,
> including
> phyletic and individual developmental and evolutionary approaches
> when they
> reasonably account for the phenomena, and keeping an open mind to
> the
> inference of intelligent design, and when it justified, including it
> in my
> total understanding. What is your objection to that?
>
> Peace,
>
> Bob
>
It seems to me that the way you cited Romans indicates that there is
proof, or something close to proof. The shifting position is a problem we
all face. I recall one of my professors saying that he had committed to
comment on a paper that a noted philosopher was to give at a conference,
and that he had no idea how to do it because he had found seven different
meanings to a crucial term on the first page.
For the rest, you seem to me to be claiming scientific support for a
philosophical claim. This is the counterpart of the claim that science
supports materialism, metaphysical naturalism, scientism. Can you explain
to me how they differ in principle?
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 24 2000 - 13:45:10 EDT