RE: [asa] RE: Malebranche (the four basic fources in nature)

>
> Some take the idea of "God as sustainer" to mean that he holds particles
> together (electrons and planets in orbit)- in that case I think the
> theory of God doing this has been replaced by the strong and weak
> nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetic force.
>
> ...Bernie

I guess this may be true to the extent that we insist on thinking of Divine
fingerprinting as within the purview of science. But if science is limited (the
EC view) then this is no more valid than saying that God (by His own admission)
was replaced by the wind (Exodus 14:21) or that He was replaced by foreign
armies (Assyria or Babylon used by God against Israel) or that He is replaced by
what we call random chance (Proverbs 16:33). The list goes on. And if we
insist: "Well, God had to directly cause the pressure difference to make the
wind at the right intensity, time & place", then we are just moving the
questioned Divine action back one level, and inserting our assumption there
instead. And perhaps the creator did. But ECs don't see God as threatened by
the notion that it may have been explainable also by what we would have observed
to be a natural chain of causality were we there to see it. And of course, that
natural chain is the only thing science can look for, and sometimes find with
limited success. But science will go on looking for such chains forever because
that is all science can do. But in the hands of a believer... welcome to the
world of natural theology. Science can be baptized to take its place within the
psalmist's repertoire. But science does not and cannot get there independently.

--Merv

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 31 10:07:44 2008