first quoting me:
>
>BH> Actually, I'm a little uncomfortable with the "barely within bounds"
>> part. I should have mentioned this previously, but didn't want to
>> get too outrageous ;-).
>
>
>Sorry about that, Brian. :-) Normally, I try to be inclusive about
>different versions of TE. In this case, I was working so
>hard to explain how some versions of TE include subtle guidance of natural
>processes, that I sort of pushed other versions towards "deism."
>
In retrospect, you were probably right since you qualified your statement
with "orthodox understandings of God's governance of nature". What I was
discussing was a view that doesn't seem to fit in (at first glance anyay)
with the word "governance" at all. Our discomfort with this idea (fine tuning
of initial conditions) may only be a consequence of our viewing things in a
unidirectional time frame. We have to be careful of thinking of God as
existing in the "Now" in the same way that we do. Is it conceivable
that God is, at this very "moment", setting the initial conditions of
the Big Bang? We may worry about how God could set the initial conditions
so precisely as to guarantee our appearance some 15 or so billion years
later [the information content of these conditions would almost certainly
be infinite]. But then, how could God possibly fail to get the initial
conditions just right if he created the entire universe (space and time)
all at "once"?
In the past, I've tried to stick to the scientific questions, I think
primarily because the theological issues make me a little uncomfortable.
I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that I am actually
advocating the PDE view [pseudo deistic evolution :-)]. I was just
"trying it out" (so to speak) to see what the theological implications
might be. To tell you the truth, I really don't find any of the usual
positions very comfortable. Perhaps that's as it should be.
Actually, our conversation reminded me of what Pascal said of Descartes
in <Pensees>:
77. I cannot forgive Descartes. In all his philosophy he would
have been quite willing to dispense with God. But he had to
make Him give a fillip to set the world in motion; beyond this,
he has no further need of God.
78. Descartes useless and uncertain.
79. Descartes.- We must say summarily: "This is made by figure and
motion," for it is true. But to say what these are, and to compose
the machine, is ridiculous. For it is useless, uncertain, and painful.
And were it true, we do not think all Philosophy is worth one hour
of pain.
My original intent was to give only fragment 77, but I couldn't resist
including 78 and 79 as well. 78 I want to re-write as "Harper useless
and uncertain" since that's the way I feel when I start talking about
theology :-). But 79 is really fascinating, is there a foreshadowing here
of undecidability and incompleteness, of anti-reductionism, of chaotic
and self-organizing systems? The statement even brings to mind one of
Yockey's general conclusions in his book which, to paraphrase, might
go something like "Yes, life is certainly consistent with the laws of
physics. This is obvious. But it is not reducible to the laws of physics,
[i.e. '... to compose the machine, is ridiculous']"
==========================
Brian Harper |
Associate Professor | "It is not certain that all is uncertain,
Applied Mechanics | to the glory of skepticism" -- Pascal
Ohio State University |