>GM>If I make a robot which mixes the wheat flour, eggs, milk, and
>>whatever in a bowl, places the dough in a pan, puts the pan in the
>>oven, turns the temperature to the proper setting, removes the bread
>>at the proper time and then slices it and bags it, if it does all
>>that, who made the bread - me or the robot? If you walk into the
>>room just after I finish programming the robot and watch it make the
>>bread, can you conclude that I had nothing to do with the
>>manufacture of the bread?
>
Steve:
>This is a Deistic concept of God-it is not the Theistic God
>depicted in the Bible. I don't believe that nature is as autonomous
>as this "robot". God does work through natural process, but it is
>always God working through them, not them working on their own without
>God:
>
>Phl 2:12 -13 "...work out your own salvation with fear and
>trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do
>of his good pleasure."
It seems to me that the essence of deism is that God was once involved with
His creation, but He is not now involved. The attraction of deism for
those who embrace it probably arises from the putative noninvolvement of
God in the affairs of men more than the question of whether He initialized
nature and walked off. So it seems to me a bit unfair to characterize the
robot example as a deistic concept of God.
Your point about the autonomy of the robot is a good one, as far as it
goes. If the robot represents all of nature, and God just sits and watches
it or perhaps goes fishing, I would consider this not a good analogy of how
I think God works. But to carry the analogy a bit farther, if God lets the
robot do its work while He attends to other things -- like caring for His
children, overseeing the robot to make sure it has what it needs to
complete its task, enjoying the baking smells and starting and supervising
other processes around the house, then I would be more comfortable with the
robot analogy. To me there is something very elegant and beautiful about a
nature that is continuing to carry out God's commands issued during the
creation week, and which continue to be issued ala Psalm 19. It seems to
me that the dispute between young-earth creationists and broad-sense
creationists (=evolutionary creationists) is a dispute over what _levels_
and _time scales_ God works on. The broad-sense creationism view is that
He can and does work at all levels, down to the level of subatomic
particles, and over any time scale He chooses, and thus much of what He
does is not directly observable. The young-earth creationists seem
uncomfortable with God working on the level of genomes and subatomic
particles over long time scales. Perhaps a reason for that discomfort --
beyond the obvious one that it doesn't square with a particular Scripture
interpretation scheme that broad sense creationists don't recognize as the
only viable scheme, is the concern that somehow if God works at molecular -
subatomic levels over long time periods, then somehow He isn't as personal
or as powerful. However, the details of how He interacts with nature do
not affect how He interacts with people. I believe in Him because He
graciously sent the Holy Spirit to perform a work of grace in me -- even
though I am a sinner -- so that I could recognize and accept His son Jesus
Christ and His redeeming sacrifice on the cross. He listens to my prayers
and He is always with me. Those issues are infinitely more important than
the details of precisely how He created, commands and upholds nature.
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)