From: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
>But you do raise an important question. If God exists (a real God, one
>worthy of
>the name), then why doesn't he reveal himself more clearly? This is a good
>question, but a theological one. Since the question ties in nicely with
what I
>want to say about TE below, let me give a quick answer. If God could be
found
>through the force of reason and logic alone, then people able to see the
>argument
>would be compelled to believe in God as a matter of logic. I believe,
instead,
>God wants those who will come to him, not by reason alone, but because they
>love Him, as a child loves their parents. I know this is an argument which
>would
>not sway the skeptic, but that's kinda the point.
You're right that it wouldn't sway the skeptic! As you say, this is really a
theological question, which doesn't interest me so much. So I won't pursue
it.
>>Thanks to you too. If you're up for another question, I'd like to know
what
>>role you think God played in evolution. Did he just set up the initial
>>conditions and then let the laws of physics run their course, or did he
>>intervene along the way? Or something else that I haven't thought of? And
>>would you call your view "theistic evolution" (the term seems to mean
>>different things to different people)?
>
>I do consider myself a TE, but prefer the term evolutionary creationist.
>
>I believe God plays a role in everything. I believe the Universe would
>cease to exist without God's continually sustaining it. I do not
>believe "he just set up the initial conditions and then let the laws of
>physics run their course". If you've read much philosophy of science
>you're probably aware that its not such an easy thing to explain
>just what a law is. One view, which I tend to lean towards, has laws
>being concise descriptions. If laws are descriptive, then I'm not quite
>sure what it means to let laws run their course.
Perhaps I should have said "did he merely run the universe mechanically in
accordance with the laws of physics, after setting up the initial
conditions, or did he introduce additional novelties along the way?"
>Let me illustrate it this way. In his memoirs (What do *You* Care
>What Other People Think -- p.16) Richard Feynman recalls a
>question he asked his father when very young:
>
> "Say, Pop, I noticed something. When I pull the wagon,
> the ball rolls to the back of the wagon. And when I'm
> pulling it along and I suddenly stop, the ball rolls
> to the front of the wagon. Why is that?"
>
>His dad answered:
>
> "That, nobody knows. The general principle is that
> things which are moving tend to keep on moving, and
> things which are standing still tend to stand still,
> unless you push them hard. This tendency is called
> 'inertia,' but nobody knows why it's true."
>
> Feynman added "Now, that's a deep understanding. He
> didn't just give me the name."
>
>The point Feynman is trying to make is that giving a name to
>something (calling it inertia) doesn't explain it (in the usual sense
>of the word "explain").
I take your point. (I've read Feynman's book too, and enjoyed it enormously.
If you haven't already read it, I recommend "Surely You're Joking, Mr
Feynman" too.)
On a slightly more subtle point.... If the laws of physics are only put into
action by God's continual intervention, then what's the difference between a
miracle and a regular event (one which follows from the laws of physics)? Is
a miracle simply an instance of God ignoring his own "laws"?
>Well, OK, I have a bad habit of getting side tracked. To summarize,
>I'm not a deist, I believe God both sustains and intervenes in the
>world, but have a hard time explaining exactly what it means to
>sustain and intervene.
>
>Very generally speaking though, I do not believe it is necessary
>for God to intervene in the formative history (to borrow Howard's
>terminology) of the Universe. Again, generally speaking, God's
>interventions are in the lives of men. God is always sustaining,
>the laws of nature themselves may very well be regularities produced
>by that sustenance.
>
>I think a great deal of Howard's view of functional integrity. This is a
>very beautiful idea even from a purely theological point of view.
>For some, accepting evolution inevitably implies some compromise
>in their theology. For me its the opposite. To go back to my former
>views would be a compromise.
I haven't seen Howard's "functional integrity" view. Is it described
anywhere online?
>Sorry to make this so long, but there is another very important
>aspect of evolution I want to address. Something likely more
>controversial :).
>
> From previous conversations on determinism vs free will perhaps
>everyone now knows that I think very highly of freedom. As we
>switch to theology, the problem of free will surfaces again. How
>do you balance an all powerful God against free beings?
>
>Let me start by saying that, in my view, One God's main intentions
>in creating was to create real, honest to goodness real, physical
>beings capable of real choice. Here's the tie in to what I wrote above.
>God's wants us to submit to him freely, out of love not by compulsion.
>This is only possible if the beings he creates can genuinely choose.
>Now comes a problem. How does an all powerful God create beings
>that are not overwhelmed by that power?
That's an interesting question, but a bit too theological for me. ;-)
>How can God cut the causal
>connections between himself and his creation? Of course, since God
>is all powerful, this could only occur by a free choice on his part. But
>how would he do it? One way, or so it seems, is to create a world with
>chance and to create by a process involving chance.
>
>Thus, I view evolution and chance as part of God's gift to us, the gift
>of freedom. It is a gift which, I believe, cost God a great deal. Some
>people talk about the seeming wastefulness of this process, I view
>this as part of the tremendous price God was willing to pay for us.
>How he must love us to pay such a price.
>
>A couple of disclaimers. (1) This is speculation (2) when I say chance
>I'm talking from man's point of view. How does what we call chance
>appear to God? I have no idea :).
Well, that's really the question that I was heading towards. If God didn't
intervene in evolution (over and above enforcing the laws of physics), then
it seems he left the evolution of species up to chance, with no specific
plan for how they would come out--it's just by chance that human beings
turned out the way we did. It seems hard to reconcile that with the idea
that God made Man according to his own image, or according to any particular
image.
A while ago, Terry drew a distinction between events which are really
random, and those which just appear random to us. Unfortunately, he didn't
elaborate. Perhaps you're saying something similar.
>Sorry for the length, but you *did* ask :).
Thanks. It's interesting!
Richard Wein.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 11 2000 - 19:39:30 EDT