Re: Miracles and Science

From: David F Siemens (dfsiemensjr@juno.com)
Date: Mon Feb 12 2001 - 14:05:48 EST

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: More on Gosse's OMPHALOS"

    On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:11:55 -0700 John W Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com>
    writes:
    in part
    >
    > Elsewhere I've commented to George Murphy on the Kingsley quotation,
    > so
    > I'll refer you to that
    > post. Is the universe we inhabit a "finished thing" (Van Till's
    > ideas) or
    > is it more
    > like a violin on which God sometimes plays a tune. The fact is that
    > we
    > know that God
    > has "played a tune"on it on occasion -- the Cana wine is my
    > favorite
    > example. I do not
    > see that "playing a tune" makes his attributes any less wiser
    > (Kingsley)
    > than if he had
    > "fully endowed" the universe from the start. Indeed, I have a
    > difficulty
    > admiring the God Van Till
    > and Kingsley propose as much as one who gets involved with us more
    > often.
    >
    > Burgy (John Burgeson)
    >
    Burgy, even if you don't think much of philosophers looking over your
    shoulder, we serve a purpose. For example, scientists get so involved in
    methodology that many get to thinking that that's all there is to
    discover and so espouse naive materialism. You're "doing" philosophy when
    you recognize that the scientist's need to look for material causes does
    not eliminate alternative approaches. Even among the sciences, that one
    can in principle present a physical description of animal activity,
    including the mental, does not mean that the physical exhausts the
    phenomena.

    We are creatures of time, so enmeshed that we find it almost impossible
    to think outside of the temporal parameter. This means that "one who gets
    involved with us more often" is likely to be viewed as one who is in
    time, a cause among other causes of physical phenomena. This is
    compatible with process theology, which restricts God to the present even
    as we are restricted to the present: he's smarter and more powerful than
    we, but must make predictions (guesses about the future) as we do.
    William Lane Craig, "Design and the Cosmological Argument," pp. 332-359
    in Dembski, Mere Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design, shows
    that this won't work. Consequently, the entire history of the universe is
    known, set, complete, etc., at the moment of creation, when time began.
    This notion is essential to the recognition that the Creator is outside
    of the space-time creation, different in kind from the causes we look for
    within the universe. Each regularity and each miracle was built in in the
    universe's origin. Every moment of time is totally depended on the
    Creator's will, even though we often tend to separate creation and
    providence.

    Some folks get all bent out of shape at the notion that God knows the end
    from the beginning and think that then God is responsible for all my
    actions. They need to recognize that knowing is not equivalent to
    causing. He was not surprised when Adam sinned. He did not scramble to
    work out how he would provide salvation. Nor did he await my decision
    about accepting that gift to start preparing a place for me. This is
    because all time and space is eternally open to him. It's hard for us to
    take this in, so we lapse into temporal ascription, even when we know
    better.

    Dave



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 12 2001 - 14:01:38 EST