Joel,
I think you got stuck on Griffin's steps. My comment was intended to
bypass all the intermediate stuff and get to the fundamental, but
unrecognized assumption. But then you bring up another assumption, common
but silly, that sovereignty means causation. It parallels the nonsense
that knowing means causing. This fits in with a claim I often made to my
classes, that there is probably more nonsense written about
determinism-free will than almost any other topic in philosophy. Few
philosophers think deeply enough to get out of the silly boxes. They
tacitly assume that God is stuck in the same temporal bind as human
beings and then build their logic on false premises. The fact is that I
can prove anything by a valid argument if you let me freely choose the
premises. This is obviously not possible if I am restricted to true
premises. But you know you don't want to be so picky. You can join the
postmoderns and deny that there is any truth beyond individual belief.
Dave
On Mon, 28 May 2001 09:11:45 -0700 Joel Z Bandstra <bandstra@ese.ogi.edu>
writes:
> David writes (in part): <<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.">>
>
> I do not think that this is the duality to which Griffin is
> referring. The
> problem would, rather, go something like this; If God is sovereign
> and I
> sin then how can I be held responsible for such sin? How can sin be
> said
> to exist if God is said to be all powerful. Really, the problem
> comes down
> to a dualism between God's sovereignty and humans' free will. It is
> hard
> to reconcile these in a logical fashion but, for me, the inability
> to make
> a complete story does not lead directly to deism and on to
> materialism. I
> simply remind myself that logic and wisdom are not necessarily one
> in the
> same. I think David's point concerning God's independence of
> space-time is
> important here in some way.
>
> Perhaps an argument against Griffin's assertion (that God is not
> external
> to the universe) is to simply follow an inverted path from that of
> Griffin
> (i.e. assert that God is external to the universe and show how that
> leads
> to the apparent dichotomies of God/evil and mind/body)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David F Siemens [SMTP:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 9:41 PM
> To: burgytwo@juno.com
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Griffin #4
>
> << File: ATT00001.att >>
> 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 - 15:53:09 EDT