RDehaan237@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 11/26/01 9:09:43 AM, gmurphy@raex.com writes:
>
> << RDehaan237@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Thanks for your response. My questions now become, what is the relationship
> > between "God acting in cooperation" and "genuine secondary causes"? How
> does
> > God cooperate? What does God cooperate with? Are the genuine secondary
> > causes ever affected by God's cooperation? If so, how? If not, then isn't
> > God's cooperation an empty hypothetical construct?>>
>
> George responded:
>
> <First, I should say that this concept of divine action isn't my
> invention
> but is a very traditional one. (Barbour labels it "neo-Thomist".) Formally,
> God
> is the "first cause" who acts in the world through created agents as "second
> causes". The model or metaphor for this is that God is the craftsperson who
> uses
> "tools" or "instruments" to accomplish certain tasks. Of course all
> metaphors or
> models are limited, and this one doesn't take into account the idea that God
> is
> the one who brings his instruments into being and preserves them.
> Where my approach differs from many traditional ones is by
> emphasizing two
> other ideas:
> (1) God normally limits his actions to the capacities of creatures
> (kenosis), and
>
> (2) God's action is seen by faith, not scientific observation. I.e., this is
> a
> theological concept, not one of natural science, & should not be expected to
> new
> insights to physics or biology as scientific theories.
> "Cooperation" means literally that God "works with" creatures/natural
> entities & processes.
> Everything is done by both God and a creature. When you write with a pen,
> both
> you and the pen can be said to act. Your action of course "affects" the pen
> - if
> you didn't pick it up it would just sit there and not write anything.
> "Cooperation" is a better term for this than the other word that is
> sometimes used, "concurrence". The latter suggests that God and creatures
> simply
> accompany one another as they each do their separate things.
> Of course you could convert the pen into some instrument that would be
> capable of a wider range of tasks, but you would do that by acting on the pen
> with
> some other instruments. >>
>
> George:
>
> Let me comment on a couple things you wrote in the above:
>
> "God is the one who brings his instruments into being and preserves them."
> I'm pretty sure you don't mean by this that God brings new instruments into
> being at any time other than in the initial creation of the universe. But I
> do. At transition points between developmental stages, in my view, God did
> just that. God brought new instruments to bring about new phenomena -- e.g.,
> cellular life. That is, I don't believe that the laws of physics and
> chemistry (God's instruments) although sufficient to account for the
> prebiotic universe, can account for the phenomenon of cellular life. We've
> gone over that before. Here's one place where we differ.
Yes. I don't think there's a compelling reason to believe that those
transitions (development of life &c) require fundamentally new capabilities, even
though we don't understand at present how those developments could have happened
through natural processes.
> I am gratified that you used the term "preserves". That seems to me an
> essential element in providence which you have neglected so far in your
> emphasis on providence as cooperation. That answers a question I asked
> later, "What else does God do besides cooperating with his creation?" God is
> also upholding, sustaining, preserving secondary causes. That may not be
> what you mean, but it is what I do.
I may not have given this adequate emphasis before but I try to give
appropriate expression to all the aspects of traditional doctrines of providence -
preservation, cooperation, & governance. One difference is that with a dynamic
view of creation it may be best to think of God preserving creatures precisely by
cooperating with them, rather than as preserving static substances & then doing
things with them.
> A comment on "cooperation". Sometimes you write as if God and
> "creatures/natural entities & processes" are equal partners in this
> cooperation. I don't think that is the case. It is more accurate to say
> that the creaturely processes cooperate with God, just as the pen cooperates
> and is dependent on the arm that does the writing. The arm is free to
> discard the pen and use some other means, but the pen is not free to discard
> the arm. Would you agree?
Yes. This is brought out with the language of primary & secondary
cooperation. (& in process thought God "lures" creatures, not the other way
around. But there is a "reaction" of creaturely action on God.)
> When you say, "God normally limits his actions to the capacities of
> creatures (kenosis)," you allow some wiggle room for God to act in ways we
> do not and maybe can never understand that may be normal yet in addition to
> the capacities of creature. I am uncomfortable when we lay hard and fast
> limitations on what God can do and has done.
Nor do I intend to forbid God to act as God chooses. But exceptions are
exception, & I think we should guard against using the resurrection of Jesus,
e.g., to provide a rationale for invoking numerous miraculous interventions -
especially when they are not things witnessed to by revelation but simply
scientifically puzzling phenomena.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 30 2001 - 09:31:47 EST