Adrian Teo wrote:
> George,Now I am getting curious. What kind of causal agent do you
> think God is, and how is that different than those in the natural
> realm? Could you be thinking of the Aristotelian types? Adrian.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: george murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 11:47 AM
> To: Adrian Teo
> Cc: 'SteamDoc@aol.com'; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: So far, new genetics leave plenty of room for
> faith
>
> Adrian Teo wrote: [My response] Allan, I fully agree that a
> God-of-the-Gaps theology is how it comes out to the general
> public, and yet the appeal is there because many Christians
> do hold on to this theology. Steve talks alot about bringing
> the God hypothesis back onto the table based on the
> Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE) approach. According
> to him, the IDers are simply asking that the God hypothesis
> be given equal weight as any other scientific/naturalistic
> explanations, and allow the evidence to point us towards the
> best explanation, even if that involves God/intelligent
> designer.
> "Asking that the God hypothesis be given equal weight as any
> other scientific/naturalistic explanation" comes very close
> to seeing God as a causal agent of the same type as things
> in the natural world. That is a serious error. God is not
> a being alongside other beings in the world, and divine
> operations are not the same as the operations of creatures.
> As Barth said, "One does not speak about God by speaking
> about man [or, I would add, any other creature] in a loud
> voice."
>
>
> Shalom,
>
>
> George
>
> God as "first cause" operating through "secondary
> causes" provides one of the best way of thinking about it,
> though that needs to be supplemented by an understanding of
> the kenotic character of divine action (God limited himself
> to what can be done through created agents) and the role of
> faith (& not merely logical inference) in seeing God at work
> in the world at all. I have set out my ideas on this in
> "The Theology of the Cross and God's Work in the World"
> (Zygon 33, 221,1998).
> My basic point, however, is not to argue for one way or
> another of thinking about divine action (Barbour discusses
> ten of them) but to insist on the fundamental theological
> distinction between between creator and creature. Any of
> the models of divine action that we may use are more or less
> imperfect analogies from the way we understand things in the
> natural world to act. God should not be thought of as as
> actually being an agent on the same order as people or
> electromagnetic fields.
>
>
> Shalom,
>
>
> George
>
> George L. Murphy
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> "The Science-Theology Interface"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 26 2001 - 16:23:28 EST