(Snip)
> In fact most of what Gould says concerning contingency
> is highly compatible with a Christian perspective as long as contingency is
> viewed as being something from a human perspective and not something that
> God is subject to.
This may not be germane to the discussions of this group, but I'm one
Christian who believes that God too is subject to contingency. (I realize
that this is probably a minority position within Christianity, and that
many Christians may view it as heretical.) I think that God (usually if
not always) *needs* (in a strong sense of `needs') human response and
co-operation in order that divine providence can be advanced, at least
divine providence for human life, development, and salvation.
There are numerous scriptural passages which suggest the view I am
espousing. One is Jonah's preaching to Ninevah, whereby the Ninevites
repented and converted, and the predicted divine retribution on their
city was averted. Another is the well-known passage, "if my people who
are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and
turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will
forgive their sin and heal their land." (2 Chr. 7:14, RSV) Jesus is
recorded as having said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and
stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your
children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you
would not!" (Matt. 23:37, RSV) -- suggesting that the divine plan for
salvation of the people of Jerusalem (Israel) was contingent on their
response to Jesus. There are no doubt hunderds of other scriptures that
imply, or at least suggest, the notion of divine contingency I'm
putting forth here.
Lloyd Eby
leby@nova.umuc.edu