On Sat, 3 Jun 1995 13:21:25 -0700 you wrote:
>You wrote:
SC>Because of the qualification "every time", you insure that no one
can answer
>your question with certainty. Still this does not detract from Lloyd's
>point that the operation of much of the cosmos is currently well understood
>mechanistically.
>
DP>I think this is a tremendous fallacy. The operation of much of the
>cosmos is *not* well understood mechanistically. We understand some
>very important principles that seem to apply in a number of useful
>circumstances, but scientists pretend a far better understanding of the
>universe than we actually have, and then we indoctrinate school
>children about our current opinions and speculations as if they were
>fact.
Agreed.
DP>Was there a big bang? If the COBE data a few years ago hadn't
shown
>some ripples in the cosmic background radiation, the big bang idea
>would likely be headed for the dustbin.
>
DP>Personally I don't see any theological conflicts between
Christianity and
>the big bang, or evolution (though I have some with `natural selection').
>So please don't think I am anti-science for theological reasons.
Again agree. The Big Bang is in harmony with the general picture of
Gen 1:1. As for "natural selection", apart from its oxymoronic
combining of blind "natural" with teleological "selection", seems
reasonably well suppported as far as micro-evolutionary variation is
concerned.
>
DP>My objection is to the attempt of science to replace faith in God
based
>on the presentation of science as the arbiter of truth. Medicine
>used to do something similar by cultivating a God-like view of physicians,
>but that is falling away. Perhaps science's image will be cut to a more
>reasonable size someday also.
Yes. Science cultivates a mythological image in order to maintain its
power and prestige. The similarity between medieval priests and the
laity is noteworthy IMHO.
DP>I wrote:
>An infinitessimal number of falling rocks have their trajectories
>evaluated scientifically. At best science can measure what God *tends*
>to do *while* we are watching.
>
>You responded:
SC> This, then, would be described as a law of nature.
>
DP>Yes exactly. What we perceive as laws of nature are simply what
God
>tends to do. The only fundamental law of nature that I know of is that
>creation is subject to the sovereign will of its creator. Raining manna
>from the sky like clockwork, parting the Sea of Reeds, walking on water,
>stopping the sun in the sky for a day -- all these events are not
>`violations' of natural law, just instances where God did something
>different than usual. There is no supernatural, just the unusual.
I disagree. There is an infinite qualitative difference between the
natural and the supernatural. It cannot be reduced down to
regular-irregular of usual-unusual.
SC>At one time, it was generally believed that seemingly capricious
phenomena
>such as earthquakes and tornadoes occurred at the whim of God and their
>causes were beyond human contemplation.
>
DP>The Scripture teaches so. That doesn't mean that we cannot
understand
>aspects of the phenomena. Will science advance to the point where it
>can predict the demise of Babylon based on the great earthquake
>of Rev 16:18? Will the withholding of rain in Zech 14:17
>be subject to human weather prediction? I suspect not.
Yes. While the interpretation of for what particular reason God
caused natural phenomena to occur may not always be clear (Lk 13:1-6;
Jn 9:3-4); there is no question in the Bible that God *did* casue it
to occur.
>You wrote:
SC>Science, then, can be another way to understand the character of
God.
>
DP>Exactly. And this is the point I really want to get at. Science
believes
>that the universe is ruled by some set of discernible principles. These
>are the 'god' of science, as attested by the frequent use of `god' as
>the metaphor for these principles.
I am not aware they say "god", but they do use "laws of nature" as
though they are ultimate explanations. This hurts God:
Hos 2:8 "For she (Israel) did not know that I gave her corn, and wine,
and oil, and multiplied her silver and gold, which they prepared for
Baal."
DP>I believe that the universe is not ruled by discernible principles,
but
>by God. The discernible principles are manifestations of His character,
>as you say also.
Agreed.
DP>These views are frequently compatible, and we can move between the
>realms easily enough (as I wrote last month). However there are some >places where problems arise.
>
DP>What about earthquakes, natural disasters, the spread of disease?
>In the Scripture these events often represent signs of various kinds.
>If ones faith is that the supreme authority in the universe is mechanism,
>then we had better focus on controlling the mechanisms. If the faith is
>that God is sovereign, then we must appeal to God.
It is not necessarily either - or. Because God acts regularly, man
(who is made in God's image) can think God's thoughts after him
and learn how God normally acts. Since the Industrial Revolution man
has applied the model of the universe as a "mechanism", with great
practical success, but this model should not be taken to be an
ultimate metaphysical principle.
DP>What about everyday issues of human relationships? Is psychology
the
>answer? What about politics and the interaction of nations? Is this
>also subject to natural laws? Or to God?
The Bible always refers all causes ultimately back to God. Rom 11:36
"For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things..."
DP>I think the difference in the mechanistic and theistic approaches
to
>the universe is summed up in Romans 1:20-23. Will we worship the
>Creator or the creation? Do we look to Him for life and sustenance, or
>to the power of our own hands and understanding? (Deut 8:17).
There is indeed a fundamental difference between the "mechanistic and
theistic approaches".
DP>If we worship the Creator, that does not mean that we cannot do
>interesting science. It just means that our understanding of the cosmos >should lead us to increasing humility rather than increasing arrogance. At >least that seems to be the lesson of Job 38.
Agreed. The 18th century leaders of science like Newton and Boyle saw
no problem with the "theistic approach" and "interesting science".
Stephen