On Fri, 26 May 1995 08:04:32 -0500 you wrote:
>Steve quotes Glenn:
>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.
I thought the very essence of deism was precisely the idea of God who
set the world going like a clock and did not intervene in its workings
after that.
How exactly is God "involved" in this "robot" example>
>
>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.
I grant that one of the themes of Genesis 1 is God delegating
authority to His creation in certain areas: eg. sun and moon to
"govern the day and the night" (Gn 1:18), man to "rule over...over all
the earth" (Gn 1:26), etc.
However, there is no statement in scripture (that I know of) that says
God has delegated the task of running His creation's inner workings to
the creation itself. The picture is of God being very much a "hands
on" Governor:
Col 1:17 "He is before all things, and in him all things hold
together."
Heb 1:3 "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact
representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful
word."
>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.
No doubt. But the real issue is not what seems to us "elegant and
beautiful" but "what saith the scripture?"
>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.
Well, I am not a "young-earth creationist", so where does that leave
me? <g>
>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.
This is a straw man specially constructed so that your view wins! <g>
May I suggest the real difference is between scripturally and
naturally derived pictures of God? The first tends to be Theistic,
whereas the second tends to be Deistic.
> 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.
This is also a bit of a fallacy. I also believe God interacts with
nature far below the "sub-atomic level", but that He does it
transcendentally as well as immanently"
>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.
Totally agree. Praise God! <g>
Stephen