RE: Malebranche (Was Re: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (miracle timing))

George,

Is Malebranche referring to primary causes when he said that God is the only true cause whereas in science we are dealing only secondary causes? How are we to understand the biblical notion that the Creator sustains the creation? In addition, Malebranche dealt heavily with the problem of theodicy. However, I am just a beginner.

Moorad

________________________________

From: George Murphy [mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
Sent: Thu 10/30/2008 1:56 PM
To: Alexanian, Moorad; Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Malebranche (Was Re: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (miracle timing))

Views like that of Malebranche run into serious problems. 1st, they imply
that the rational patterns that we discern in the world are arbitrary & have
no real connection with what the world is made of. That may have been
appealing in M's time when - in Newtonian physics - the world could be
pictured as made up of inert bits of matter that moved in accord with laws
that had no intrinsic connection with what matter is. It would be sort of
like the rules of chess: The fact that knights moves in their 2-1 fashion
& bishops along diagonals has nothing to do with the fact that one is shaped
like a horsehead & the other has a stylized mitre. But we've come to see
today that the laws of motion not only describe how matter moves but what it
is. What electrons are & how they behave are described by the same
equations of quantum field theory.

From a theological standpoint there are several problems. The idea that God
is the sole cause (to be distinguished from the ultimate cause) suggests
that God is not willing to create a world that is not simply an extension of
God's own self. God would begrudge creatures any active role in the world.
& the already difficult problems of theodicy that God's role in morally evil
actions would be exacerbated. If Malebranche were right we would have to
say simply that God was the sole cause behind the Holocaust or the Cambodian
genocide.

With all that of course no one can prove that Malebranche was wrong, just as
no one can prove that a consistent solipsism is wrong, but who takes such
claims seriously?

Shalom
George
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 9:28 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (miracle timing)

> Recently I have come across the writings of the ordained priest Nicolas
> Malebranche (1638-1715), who consider that God is the only true casual
> agent-the doctrine of occasional causes or occasionalism. I believe that
> this is an interesting idea of how God sustains the creation. Perhaps the
> process of photosynthesis in not really the cause but the light energy is
> the occasion but not the cause of the conversion into chemical energy. It
> is a cute idea.
>
>
>
> Moorad
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Dehler, Bernie
> Sent: Wed 10/29/2008 3:04 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (miracle timing)
>
>
>
> Hi Moorad-
>
>
>
> Can I answer your question with a question? Here it is:
>
>
>
> Does God make the flowers grow, or is it the process of photosynthesis?
> Which one?
>
>
>
> I think what we are trying to discover is how God does things, and when we
> see them done in naturalistic manners, there is no difference between
> atheism and TE because both are looking at the natural (not supernatural)
> processes. Science (by definition) is in the business of discovering
> natural processes only, so TE would agree with atheist evolutionary
> theory.
>
>
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Alexanian, Moorad [mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 11:56 AM
> To: Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (miracle timing)
>
>
>
> What scientific questions creation by TE answers that cannot be answered
> by ordinary, non-theistic evolutionary theory?
>
> Moorad
>
>
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:49 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (miracle timing)
>
>
>
> "And you draw a false distinction by implying that creation by TE is not a
> miracle. I think it is, but just not a sudden miracle, a timed release
> one."
>
>
>
> A "time-released" miracle- that sounds funny,,, and I like it! ;-)
>
>
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of John Walley
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:36 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu; James Patterson; gregoryarago@yahoo.ca
> Subject: RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (Cheek turning)
>
>
>
>>'The science' (rather monolithically stated) is a bit too big for its
>>britches sometimes, isn't >it John?
>
>
>
> No I don't think so. I too was an RTB PC like James for years until I read
> Francis Collins and found someone who dealt with the scientific evidence
> honestly. That is why I say psuedogenes are the smoking gun for CD. Once
> you accept that, the only intellectually honest conclusion is TE, which is
> where I came to, albeit kicking and screaming.
>
>
>
> I understand and empathize with the RTB PC position and I know giving it
> up is painful, but it just doesn't work.
>
>
>
> And you draw a false distinction by implying that creation by TE is not a
> miracle. I think it is, but just not a sudden miracle, a timed release
> one. TE and OEC are not that far apart on most issues except this very one
> but it is a major one. It means the difference between science and faith,
> and relevance and scorn.
>
>
>
> But I will rephrase my use of "'the scientific and thinking community" to
> "the rational and thinking community". I know there are exceptions like
> YEC including scientists but again I contend that the only rational
> conclusion of the evidence of CD is TE. All this hand waving and appeals
> to "appearance of imperfection" arguments are embarassing and just really
> immature.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:36:39 -0400