[deleted]
> A related nuance of "natural," at least when referring to such things
>as the laws of physics, is that in some sense they seem impersonal. I
suspect
>that this is indeed a nuance that causes many of us Christians to worry
when it
>is proposed that everything is governed by natural laws. Making that
>naturalistic claim is certainly no threat to the concept that God ordained
the
>laws of nature and creates, sustains, governs, wills, plans, purposes,
>sustains, concurs, etc. the universe according to these laws. But there
tends
>to be the psychological reaction that if God entirely uses these "natural
>laws," the universe would be too impersonal for our liking, or for an easy
>reconcilation with Christian doctrine.
>
> I think Steven Weinberg expressed it well from an agnostic or atheistic
>position in his Chapter 11, "What About God?" in _Dreams of a Final Theory_
>(Pantheon Books, New York, 1992), when he wrote (page 242), "If there were
>anything we could discover in nature that *would* give us some special
insight
>into the handiwork of God, it would have to be the final laws of nature," and
>later (page 245), "Will we find an interested God in the final laws of
nature?
>... I think that we will not. All our experience throughout the history of
>science has tended in the opposite direction, toward a chilling impersonality
>in the laws of nature."
[deleted]
I tend to agree with Weinberg that we will not find an interested God in the
final laws of nature. The reason is that God will not be "derived" from the
mathematical laws that describe nature. This is somewhat analogous to the
statement that Romeo and Juliet cannot conclude that they are part of a play
written by Shakespeare. Only if Shakespeare wills his appearance into the
play will the protagonists know of his existence. Weinberg correctly
indicates that the history of science is neutral regarding the existence of
God. But that is the true nature of good science. However, our mathematical
laws don't describe, nor attempt to describe, the whole of the human
experience. To claim otherwise would be nonsensical.
It is clear that Weinberg does not confront Christ. His reference to
religion is not specific enough, for instance, to indicate if he rejects the
claims of who Christ is and what He did on the cross. [Of course, from his
writing I can conclude that Weinberg rejects Christ as Lord and Savior.] One
must never forget that Christianity is not a religion. Religion is man/woman
seeking God; whereas, in Christianity God sought man/woman. If one accepts
that God became flesh in the person of Christ, then one can never talk of a
non interested God. The historical element of Christianity is all important,
St. Paul already made that clear. People like Joseph Campbell speak about
myths and indicate that the historicity of Christianity is not important
that what is important are the myths. That is pure nonsense. I believe that
Weinberg and Campbell do not BELIEVE that Christ is who He said He is. Their
conclusions follow from that premise alone and has nothing to do with their
erudition in their field of studies. Like evolutionary theorists when they
state that "evolution is a fact," Weinberg and Campbell conclude what they
already assumed.
Moorad