From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
The first thing I note from the quotation from Hartshorne is that its
language is emotionally loaded.
Agreed.
.... I note that Polkinghorne presents a problem in the last sentence here
quoted. Contrary to what he says, an omnipotent God does not "allow" things
to be: he rather sets the principles by which they exist and function, and
providentially holds them to those principles.
The question is, Did God have a choice in setting those principles, or is
God bound by God's own being and the nature of the God/world relationship?
He is not the kind of deity of the pagans, influenced by whim but subject to
ananke, an external necessity.
I, too, would find "whim" out of place. "External" necessity also; but how
about "internal" necessity, the necessity to be consistent with One's own
being, including One's relationship to "world"?
Since he is orderly (evidenced by the effectiveness of scientific
investigations), we can speak of causal necessity.
Question for thought: Is "orderly" the most fruitful label for that aspect
of God's character that leads to causal necessity? (I'm not sure I know
exactly what 'causal necessity here entails.) Does the system of creaturely
cause/effect relationships apply universally (and perhaps without exception
if supernatural intervention is rejected) because God is "orderly" or
because God's action is never coercive, never violating the being of any
creature by overpowering it?
................skip a bit...............
There is a different area involving human beings which has often been
mistaken for indeterminism, human freedom. Actually, free will or choice
falls under a special type of determinism, self-determination, an area where
we are, though limited, initiating causes. (Only God is an unlimited or
unrestricted originating or initiating cause.)
Are we back to the question about God being, in some beneficial way,
restricted"? I'm not convinced that all restrictions are necessarily to b e
rejected
This human freedom cannot be demonstrated empirically, but is assumed by
all, including dogmatic determinists.
It is my opinion that God so values the freedom he has given us that the
ultimate principle of morality may be to do that which provides the maximum
amount of liberty for all. It seems very clear that God intended creatures
who could choose to love him, even though that also meant that they could
reject him and his love for them. May I suggest that even God cannot create
entities who must (i.e., of necessity, not of duty) choose to love him.
Yes, I see that an an appropriate suggestion -- a form of beneficial
restriction.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 30 2002 - 16:34:52 EST