"Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
> From: george murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
>
>
>
>
> Do I understand you to say that God does not only not
> intervene to stop volcanoes, H-bombs &c but that God cannot,
> "as a consequence of the fundamental nature of God, the
> world, and their relationship", keep from doing whatever it
> is God does (persuade, cooperate &c) with natural processes
> to enable them to bring about their consequences?
>
>
>
> Griffin's position is (1) that God's action is never
> coercive/overpowering (he rejects supernaturalism because it demands a
> violation of the very nature of God and the God/world relationship),
> and (2) that God's action can nonetheless be variable, within the
> limits of (1). Hence, God responds to prayer, but not with action in
> the category of supernatural (coercive overpowering) intervention. I
> believe that his position is also that non-coercive divine action is
> an essential element in everything that happens.
But can God _withhold_ the non-coercive action so that something
_doesn't_ happen? Could he have kept the powder from detonating in
Oswald's gun, not by inserting a supernatural thumb between the firing
pin & the primer but by not "persuading" the necessary chemical
reactions to take place?
If so, then God seems no less culpable than in traditional
doctrines of providence: He could have kept JFK from being killed but
didn't. If not, then God doesn't seem to have much choice in what
happens in the world.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 31 2002 - 18:42:08 EST