Moorad Alexanian wrote:
> I believe that when you say that the boundary conditions have to be set in,
> you are already assuming that there is a deterministic (mathematical)
> equation that determines the future evolution of the whole thing. I contest
> that. I think God has access to the whole of spacetime, not only time. All
> of us are worldlines to God. He sees the future because He saw us do it
> already. I think it is rather difficult to know how God interacts with
> nature, especially since He sustains the whole thing. I think that
> irreversibility in the universe is a consequence of the Fall.
So back in One Billion B.C. heat sometimes flowed spontaneously from hot
a hot region to a cold one?
> I think it is
> better to plead ignorance rather than to make all sorts of speculative
> remarks and, even worse, to write articles about how God interacts with
> nature.
Any theological effort can be useless or even harmful if it is pure
speculation which has no value for proclamation or teaching of the Christian
message. On the other hand, the church cannot avoid the responsibility of
thinking through its faith in order to proclaim & teach clearly, to avoid error,
& to communicate with people living in various cultures - including our
scientific-technological culture.
Doctrines of creation & providence are part of that task.
We can teach little children to pray "Give us this day our daily bread"
& they may simply believe that God feeds them. Fine. When they grow up & start
asking how they can relate that faith to the fact that we understand in some
detail how we get our daily bread with no reference at all to God, simply
pleading ignorance is irresponsible. We should make it clear that our models &
theories of divine action are human models & theories & not revealed truth. But
that's quite different from just shrugging our shoulders & saying we haven't a
clue.
Shalom,
George
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 24 2000 - 14:41:49 EDT