I am content to let Howard and George continue this conversation, if they
wish, I've said my piece. I thank them both for a provocative and
enlightening discussion. I add only one small corrective: I had said before
that I didn't recall studying Griffin's book, The Reenchantment of Science.
I have since found a file containing a letter I sent Griffin several years
ago, following up a lengthy conversation we had had in Berkeley, in which I
responded to his request to look specifically at two of his books with
certain things in mind. One of those books was Reenchantment. The scope of
that study did not take in the issue of creatio ex nihilo, though we had
discussed this in Berkeley. It mainly had to do with his use of Robert
Boyle.
I won't divulge the full contents of my letter, which was a short treatise
in itself, but I will quote two brief passages, further to differentiate my
views from his:
"It is clear that we share the same revisionist view of the history of God
and nature, though we differ substantially on what this means for us today."
I then elaborated on my "high" view of divine transcendence and divine
freedom.
"Your view of God as world soul is developed with clarity and boldness...
But I cannot follow you on that path, as you already know." David has a
Stoic understanding of God's relationship to nature, whereas mine is
classically Christian (as was Boyle's). Or so I would interpret it, and I
think he would generally agree.
Ted Davis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 05 2002 - 13:00:28 EST