From: Steve Petermann (steve@spetermann.org)
Date: Fri Sep 19 2003 - 16:23:32 EDT
Walter wrote:
> I am not
> trying to advocate a "god of the gaps", but rather that it is not at all
clear
> that science will, ever be capable fo defining the universe in terms we
can
> comprehend. We have been lucky so far, but it is difficult to extrapolate
that
> to completeness.
I agree that scientific explanations are always tentative. However, I think
religious folk can and possibly should respect what science says. The way I
like to think of it is that science offers a workspace within which
believers who take science seriously can try to formula a well reasoned
faith. This does not mean, however, that science has complete sway over our
innate religious intuition about the cosmos. Science can, however, inform
that intuition and its extrapolations.
I also agree and think so myself that science will never be complete. At
best it will be a useful set of metaphors about reality that when applied
seem to "work".
However, what I think a scientific worldview tells us is that the universe
operates at least to a large degree with regularity. This provides for me a
theological workspace that says that God works primarily if not exclusively
within the small events. I cannot exclude the possibility of dramatic telic
events, either through supernaturalism or some natural dynamic like changes
in chaotic systems, but to posit a God who is heavy handed with reality does
not seem compelling to me.
My current view is that God created the universe with just the right mix of
stability(regularities) and novelty(irregularities, some of these small
events). It is a perfect mix for creating the love, beauty and meaning we
see. However, my view which is probably different from Howard's is that
this front loading of design is not with the intent of creating a universe
that runs on its own, but one where God can be and is actively engaged in
what emerges and the lives of its inhabitants.
Steve Petermann
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Hicks" <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
To: "Steve Petermann" <steve@spetermann.org>
Cc: "Dr. Blake Nelson" <bnelson301@yahoo.com>; <asa@lists.calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: Fragility and tendentiousness
>
>
> Steve Petermann wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > The point you keep making that science cannot logically exclude
> > supernaturalism is a truism. I never contented that science could. My
> > contention and that of many others is that as science has discovered the
> > natural causes for the unfolding of the cosmos ....
>
> Being a physicist, I'd like to think that this borders on the truth.
However,
> the recent discoveries (?) of Dark Matter and Dark Energy have put
cosmologists
> further into the Dark (bad pun) about what truly comprises the cosmos. I
am not
> trying to advocate a "god of the gaps", but rather that it is not at all
clear
> that science will, ever be capable fo defining the universe in terms we
can
> comprehend. We have been lucky so far, but it is difficult to extrapolate
that
> to completeness.
>
> If anything, the fact that we humans _can_ comprehend the cosmos speaks
for the
> existence of a creation that involves more than just particles and
energy ---
> not the converse.
>
>
> IMO
>
> Walt
>
>
> --
> ===================================
> Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>
> In any consistent theory, there must
> exist true but not provable statements.
> (Godel's Theorem)
>
> You can only find the truth with logic
> If you have already found the truth
> without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
> ===================================
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 19 2003 - 16:26:37 EDT