Hello George,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: george murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 2:11 PM
> To: Adrian Teo
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Human origins and doctrine
> I'm wary of any "argument ... for the necessity of
> God." Such an
> argument requires that in one way or another God's existence
> can be logically
> determined by some feature or features of the world, and thus
> assumes the
> legitimacy of an independent natural theology. I think that
> the theology of the
> cross and the related kenotic character of divine action
> argue against such a
> possibility. Eberhard Juengel has developed this idea in
> detail in _God as the
> Mystery of the World_ and argues there that God is "more than
> necessary."
Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly (and I am not trained in
theology), but it seems to me that the argument for the *logical* necessity
of God's existence does not necessarily assume a legitimate independent
natural theology. Otherwise, on what other basis do we argue that God is
real, and without God, the world would not be in existence? (notice that I
am NOT familiar with the works of Juengel).
> On the specific issue of the development of moral
> capacity &c: The gap
> that exists here is one between two different categories, &
> thus is rather like
> the mind-brain problem. I admit that it is a difficult
> problem, but still don't
> think a God of the gaps answer is helpful. What does such an
> answer do? If it
> isn't intended as a prohibition of further scientific work,
> it is simply a
> temporary stop-gap. In the later case, what's the point?
> Why not just say "We
> don't know."
> (& of course as Christians we are going to say that
> God is involved in
> the development of moral agency, just as God is active in the
> mind brain
> connection - whether we understand these things
> scientifically or not.)
Your words in parentheses supports my position that as Christians, we want
God in the picture somehow. We wish to reject any complete explanation that
leaves no room for God, because we contend that those explanations are
incomplete. So, in a sense, as I have admitted, it is similar to a
God-of-the-gaps argument. But in a different sense, it is dissimilar from
the commonly understood God-of-the-gaps argument that differentiates between
natural processes and supernatural ones. I reject that latter approach, and
fully affirm that God is always involved. But nevertheless, I want God in
the picture in order to complete the explanation.
Sure, invoking God into any scientific exploration may undermine future
research, but when we are discussing issues that we recognize are broader
than science, such as human nature itself, why is it inadmissible to invoke
the "God hypothesis"? So it is in the case of morality or the mind-brain
problem. If we frame the issue as a strictly scientific one, and a priori
agree to limit the discussion as such, then bringing God in the picture
would not be helpful. But if, among theists, we frame the issue in the
larger context (which I assume we have been doing all along), then it makes
perfect sense to me to talk about God.
What do you think?
Adrian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 26 2002 - 15:57:45 EST