RDehaan237@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 11/23/01 9:16:10 AM, gmurphy@raex.com writes:
>
> << The basic theological question, however, is whether God does act in
> cooperation with natural processes, or whether God acts directly all the time.
> I.e., are creatures genuine secondary causes of events in the world or not?
> If
> they are, and IF (the critical assumption of a kenotic view of divine action)
> God
> limits his action to what is within the capacity of created agents, then our
> understanding of what natural processes can do will help us to understand
> further
> what God does. >>
>
> George,
>
> Thanks for your response. My questions now become, what is the relationship
> between "God acting in cooperation" and "genuine secondary causes"? How does
> God cooperate? What does God cooperate with? Are the genuine secondary
> causes ever affected by God's cooperation? If so, how? If not, then isn't
> God's cooperation an empty hypothetical construct?
First, I should say that this concept of divine action isn't my invention
but is a very traditional one. (Barbour labels it "neo-Thomist".) Formally, God
is the "first cause" who acts in the world through created agents as "second
causes". The model or metaphor for this is that God is the craftsperson who uses
"tools" or "instruments" to accomplish certain tasks. Of course all metaphors or
models are limited, and this one doesn't take into account the idea that God is
the one who brings his instruments into being and preserves them.
Where my approach differs from many traditional ones is by emphasizing two
other ideas:
(1) God normally limits his actions to the capacities of creatures (kenosis), and
(2) God's action is seen by faith, not scientific observation. I.e., this is a
theological concept, not one of natural science, & should not be expected to new
insights to physics or biology as scientific theories.
"Cooperation" means literally that God "works with" creatures/natural
entities & processes.
Everything is done by both God and a creature. When you write with a pen, both
you and the pen can be said to act. Your action of course "affects" the pen - if
you didn't pick it up it would just sit there and not write anything.
"Cooperation" is a better term for this than the other word that is
sometimes used, "concurrence". The latter suggests that God and creatures simply
accompany one another as they each do their separate things.
Of course you could convert the pen into some instrument that would be
capable of a wider range of tasks, but you would do that by acting on the pen with
some other instruments.
You said, "God limits his action to what is within the capacity of created
> agents." This assumes that creation is front loaded, which is one of the
> points under debate. Your statement begs the question.
That depends on what the question is. I am trying to present aview of
divine action which is consistent with the character of God that is revealed in
Christ, and I think that kenosis is a fundamental aspect of that. I have not
claimed (nor, I think has Howard for his views) to have proved that natural
processes can explain everything that we observe about the development o life &c.
But I do think it's the most adequate approach theologically, & it encourages us
to look for better understandings of natural processes in order to explain the
things that we don't yet understand scientifically. & that includes the
possibility (suggested by recent work in both theology & physics) that the future
can affect the past, so that creation need not be understood as entirely "front
loaded."
> You concluded: "then our understanding of what natural processes can do will
> help us to understand further what God does." Aside from "cooperation," I
> don't see that God does anything in your view of creation. What else does
> God do?
This indicates a lack of understanding of what "cooperation" means. God
does everything, but does it indirectly, through the mediation of creaturely
agents. To say "what else does God do?" suggests the picture of a cancer patient
praying to God for healing, having successful surgery, and then getting mad at God
because he was healed by the surgeon rather than by God.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 26 2001 - 09:10:52 EST