On Sat, 26 May 2001 16:41:43 -0600 John W Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com>
writes:
> Griffin #4
snip
>
> The problem with ontological dualism is the mind/body interaction
> problem.To affirm it, one must affirm supernaturalistic theism.
> "...all
> things are possible to God except the logically impossible... " and
> "a
> few events occur without natural causes, so they must uniquely be
> explained by reference to God's causation." But this is necessarily
> contradicted by such events as the Lisbon earthquake in 1755 (see
> my
> review of PERILS OF A RESTLESS PLANET on my website at
> <www.burgy.50megs.com/perils.htm>. One cannot reconcile the two
> assumptions (1) God is all powerful, (2) God is all loving with the
> dirty
> fact "evil exists." So, he argues, Supernaturalistic theism
> necessarily
> led (and leads) to deism and eventually to atheism.
>
snip
>
> God, Griffin says, is not a being external to the universe.. I
> cannot buy
> that. I am not sure, however, how to argue against it.
>
> end chapter 2. John Burgeson
> Burgy (John Burgeson)
>
> www.burgy.50megs.com
>
The obvious problem with the first part noted above is that Griffin, like
many others, thinks that, if he doesn't like it, it is evil and "my god
wouldn't do that." This is clearly a deity constructed in the human
image. Think for a moment on what kind of a world we would have if there
were no death. Even within the development of the individual there has to
be death. Science 292:866 (4 May 2001) notes that, without apoptosis
during early embryonic development there cannot be developing life, for
apoptosis forms the beginnings of the amniotic cavity. Death is necessary
to life.
It's easy to suggest that the world would be better if something or other
were changed. The problem is that all these matters are intertwined, so
changes at any spot produce ramified alterations that also have to be
attended to ad infinitum. But of course Griffin is so brilliant that he
can make these changes off the top of his head. Right?
If god is within the universe, then it is restricted to space-time. It
cannot fully anticipate the future, or take full part is everything going
on, for part of it is out of signaling distance. Further, there cannot be
a Big Bang unless god and space-time and mass-energy came into existence
simultaneously. One cannot get around this by a "bubble" theory, for that
merely pushes the beginning back a stage or more with the same problem
probably exacerbated. Recall that Whitehead was writing when a static
universe was the accepted view, even pre-Steady State with its new matter
coming into being was a development a couple decades later. A personal
God outside the universe can bring it into being ex nihilo, can
accomplish his will in all things, including creating beings who have a
limited independence from him, that is, free will. Whitehead's view
requires that somehow the "spirit" in the material universe is
concentrated in human beings so that they are self-aware, even though a
degree of awareness is present in the nonsentient as well. All Process
Theology of which I am aware turns Genesis 1:26f on its head, producing a
god in man's image. Is this inconsistent? Not, so far as I can determine,
in any simple way. One can always quit thinking at some point and declare
"That's just the way it is. It can't be explained." But the ineffable
Creator who revealed himself in Jesus Christ move the point back to
accommodate all that we have discovered scientifically.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 28 2001 - 00:43:46 EDT