OK. But would you agree with this, Terry?
MIRM is often claimed to be "the way things are" -- for example, in atheism
or in "clockmaker" deism. MIRM is certainly an *ontological claim* that is
made by many.
And (in part of what I snipped out above) Terry says,
>As I've stated before randomness and chance are human
>perceptions--they are never the way things are from God's perspective.
Yes, it is debatable whether or not MIRM is a valid concept within a
framework of Christian theology.
On this question, Allan says that, no, MIRM isn't a valid way for a
Christian to characterize reality:
>I think the MIRM definition, if it is salvageable at all, needs to be
>divided up in order to get at the real issues. How about these three
>divisions:
>
>MIRM-1: completely independent of God
>MIRM-2: dependent on God only in the way a running watch is dependent on
>its maker
>MIRM-3: under God's sustenance, concurrence, etc.
>
>From the Christian perspective, certainly nothing in the universe is in
>category MIRM-1. As Terry Gray has pointed out, most Christian theology
>(and I would add that this view does not necessarily entail Calvinism)
>affirms that MIRM-2 is also an empty set.
But MIRM-1 is believed by atheists, and MIRM-2 by deists.
One of my questions, in this thread, is how theistic evolution (especially
with a "functional integrity" viewpoint) differs from atheism or deism in
the "origin of life" part of natural history.
********************************************
Consider this post an introduction to the post that follows, which
deals with the "R" in MIRM. But before moving on to randomness, an
important issue should be addressed: communication. Recently, Phil Johnson
was being criticized for either: 1) holding "God of the Gaps" views
(similar to those of Sagan) or 2) mis-communicating his views so that his
readers/listeners might infer a "gaps" view and might be encouraged to
adopt such a view for themselves. It seems to me that a similar danger,
with mis-communication, could occur with theistic evolution.
Consider the TV show, "Touched by an Angel." I like it (especially
compared with typical TV sit-coms or dramas), but there is a danger because
in every show the angels announce to the humans that "we are angels sent by
God." This implies that without a similarly explicit announcement, we can
be sure that there have been no angels, and no interaction with God. Yes,
this is classical "gaps" thinking. When discussing Christian ontology, it
is useful to have more categories than simply MIRM & MTA (the only two that
deists, or atheists like Sagan, would have in their set of concepts) or STA
& MTA, as suggested by Allan,
>Given that, I'm not sure any
>useful distinction, even ontological, remains between MIRM and your
>"Smoothly Blending Theistic Action."
One useful function of SBTA is to avoid "gaps mentality" when
discussing ontological theories-about-reality with non-Christians. If
these people compare their 2 categories (MIRM & MTA) with our 2 categories
(SBTA & MTA), they will probably conclude that "MIRM = SBTA" and that God
is active only in the "gaps" when miracles occur.
But with SBTA there is a possibility of explaining that even when there
seems to be no miraculous theistic activity, God is still active in our
lives -- both INTERNALLY with cognitive/affective interactions (to provide
wisdom, comfort, love, courage,...) as discussed in my initial "T/D #3",
and EXTERNALLY with TA that can change events, such as the Joshua in Exodus
17. In each of these cases, even though no physical laws are being
"interfered with" (and everything seems to be following the usual natural
laws) there is a claim (in the Bible) for personally customized "theistic
action" that cannot (if the Bible is to be believed) be confused with MIRM
that occurs by natural laws.
Don't you think that SBTA (or something like it) is an accurate, useful
way to distinguish this activity from an atheist's concept of MIRM? Do you
think that it will make any conceptual sense, to a non-believer, to speak
of sustenance (based on sound inductive logic, the continuation of the
universe is simply assumed and taken for granted by a non-believer),
governance (does a clarification of this concept require that we
immediately discuss "applied omnipotence" and predestination?) or
concurrence (this is a useful concept, but only in a context like the
"obedient cooperation" discussed in my earlier TD#2 post, not in the
context of a worldview based on MIRM, which is the worldview for many
non-believers).
Clear communication requires clearly differentiated concepts.
This is one reason that I appreciate efforts such as those by Allan
when he considers the consequences of splitting MIRM into 3 categories.
But simplicity can also be useful for communication. Ontologically,
MIRM-1 = MIRM-2, because at the present time, it makes no difference
whether or not there *was* a creator; if this creator is no longer active,
all we have is MIRM. And with MIRM-3, the SGC concepts (sustenance,
governance, concurrence) seem too vague, too easily confused with other
concepts (such as MIRM-1 or MIRM-2), to be really useful for clear
communication.
Craig R