On Fri, 05 Nov 1999 21:08:47 +0000, mortongr@flash.net wrote:
[...]
GM>Before people claim that chance is incompatible with God's creation,
>remember that God is omnipotent and thus is able to control chance. Chance
>doesn't control God. Nor is God a snivelling coward when He is faced with
>chance.
[...]
As I have pointed out before, the real issue is not whether "chance is
incompatible with God's creation" but whether chance is incompatible with
God's *existence*:
"It is not necessary for chance to rule in order to supplant God. Indeed
chance requires little authority at all if it is to depose God; all it needs to do
the job is to exist. The mere existence of chance is enough to rip God from
his cosmic throne. Chance does not need to rule; it does not need to be
sovereign. If it exists as a mere impotent, humble servant, it leaves God not
only out of date, but out of a job. If chance exists in its frailest possible
form, God is finished. Nay, he could not be finished because that would
assume he once was. To finish something implies that it at best was once
active or existing. If chance exists in any size, shape, or form, God cannot
exist. The two are mutually exclusive. If chance existed, it would destroy
God's sovereignty. If God is not sovereign, he is not God. If he is not God,
he simply is not. If chance is, God is not. If God is, chance is not. The two
cannot coexist by reason of the impossibility of the contrary." (Sproul R.C.,
"Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology",
Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1994, p3).
Like many of arguments in the Creation/Evolution debate, this one thrives on
the ambiguity of the key word(s) - in this case "chance".
Geisler clarifies "Chance" in his "Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics",
as follows:
1. The Meaning of "Chance". The first step is to define what we mean by
"chance". As Geisler points out, "chance" has at least three meanings: 1)
the "intersection of two or more lines of causality"; 2) "the lack of any
cause"; or 3) "chance as a real cause itself":
"Chance. The concept of chance has evolved in meaning. Chance for Aristotle and
other classical philosophers was merely the fortuitous intersection of two
or more lines of causality. In modern times, however, the term has taken on
two different meanings. Some regard chance as the lack of any cause. As
Mortimer Adler put it, some take chance to mean "that which happens
totally without cause-the absolute spontaneous or fortuitous" (cited in
Sproul, xv). Others view chance as a real cause itself, only a blind, rather
than an intelligent, cause. Naturalists and materialists often speak this way.
For example, since David Hume, the teleological argument has been
countered with the alternative that the universe resulted from chance, not
from intelligent design. Although Hume himself did not do so, some have
taken this to mean that the Universe was caused by chance, instead of by
God." (Geisler N.L., "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics", 1999,
p125)
Geisler says (and I agree) that the last two meanings of "chance": 2) "the lack
of any cause"; or 3) "chance as a real cause itself" are incompatible with
theism:
"Chance, conceived either as the lack of a cause or as a cause in itself, is
incompatible with theism. As long as chance rules, . Arthur Koestler noted,
"God is an anachronism" (cited in Sproul, 3). The existence of chance tips
God off his cosmic throne. God and chance are mutually exclusive. If
chance exists, God is not in complete control of the universe. There cannot
even exist an intelligent Designer." (Geisler N.L., 1999, p125).
Theism has no problem with chance defined as 1) the "intersection of two or
more lines of causality".
2. "The Nature of Chance". Geisler continues, clarifying the common
confusion of "chance as a mathematical probability and chance as a real
cause":
"Definition of the word chance depends partly on the worldview agenda of
the one doing the defining. Two usages are commonly confused when
speaking about the origin of things: chance as a mathematical probability
and chance as a real cause. The first is merely abstract. When rolling a dice
the chances are one in six that the number six will come out on top. The
odds are one in thirty-six that two dice will both come up six and one in
216 that three sixes will be thrown on three dice. These are abstract
mathematical probabilities. But chance did not cause those three dice to
turn up sixes. What did it was the force of throwing them, their starting
position in the hand, the angle of the toss, how they deflected off objects in
their way, and other results of inertia. Chance had nothing to do with it. As
Sproul put it, "chance has no power to do anything. It is cosmically, totally,
consummately impotent" (Sproul, 6). Lest one think we have loaded the
dice by citing a theist, hear the words of Hume: "Chance, when strictly
examined, is a mere negative word, and means not any real power which
has anywhere a being." He added, "Though there be no such thing as
Chance in the world; our ignorance of the real cause of any event has the
same influence on the understanding, and begets a like species of belief or
opinion" (Hume, Sect 6)" (Geisler N.L., 1999, p125).
3. "Attributing Causal Power to Chance". To attribute causal power to
chance (as Glenn here appears to be doing), Geisler says "is magic, not
science":
"Herbert Jaki in God and the Cosmologists has an insightful chapter titled
"Loaded Dice." He refers to Pierre Delbert who said, "Chance appears
today as a law, the most general of all laws" (Delbert 238). This is magic,
not science....The basic fallacy of making chance into a causal power was
stated well by Sproul. "1. Chance is not an entity. 2. Nonentities have no
power because they have no being. 3. To say that something happens or is
caused by chance is to suggest attributing instrumental power to nothing"
(Sprout 13). But it is absurd to claim that nothing produced something.
Nothing does not even exist and, hence, has no power to cause anything."
(Geisler N.L., 1999, pp125-126).
4. "Intelligent Cause(s) and "Chance" Results". Geisler points out that what
appears to be "chance" can in fact be the result of rational purpose:
"Not all chance events occur from natural phenomena. Intelligent causes
can juxtapose as "chance" encounters. Two scientists, working
independently from different approaches, make the same discovery. One
rational being buries a treasure in the earth. Another finds it by chance
while digging the foundation for a house. What appears to be a random
mixture is not necessarily without rational purpose. There is a rational
purpose behind the designing of a random mixture of number sequences in
a lottery drawing. There is a rational purpose for the random mixture of
carbon dioxide we exhale into the surrounding air; otherwise we would re-
breathe it and die of oxygen deprivation. In this sense, God the designer
and chance randomness are not incompatible concepts. However, to speak
of a chance cause is meaningless." (Geisler N.L., 1999, p126).
5. "Conclusion". Since "every event has an adequate cause", Geisler
concluded there really is no such thing as a truly "chance cause":
"Strictly speaking, there can be no chance cause or origin of the universe
and life. Every event has an adequate cause. The choices are either
intelligent causes or nonintelligent causes, either a natural cause or a
nonnatural cause. The only way we can know which is by the kind of effect
produced...Since the universe manifests intelligent design, it is reasonable
to posit an intelligent cause...The apparent chance or randomness (like the
lottery or the mixture of air molecules) may be part of the overall intelligent
design." (Geisler N.L., 1999, p126)
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, Mr. Kristol, evolution (as theory) is indeed "a conglomerate idea
consisting of conflicting hypotheses," and I and my colleagues teach it as
such." (Gould S.J., "Darwinism Defined: The Difference Between Fact and
Theory", Discover, January 1987, p65)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------