From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Fri Oct 03 2003 - 09:32:44 EDT
Steve Petermann wrote:
>
> 4) naturalistic theism -- God, yes; coercive supernatural
> > intervention, no.
>
> Seems to me there could also be some distinctions in this one.
>
> Process theology: Divine action is only persuasive(whatever that means,
> non-assertive?).
>
> Polkinghorne, Peacocke, Russell type divine action that is assertive but
> embedded in "natural processes."
>
> Anomalous divine action that might not fit within known natural processes
> but is non-violationist because nature is not ontologically independent with
> intrinsic properties.
>
> BTW, I've read most of Griffins new book _Reenchantment without
> Supernaturalism_ and I still can't find his science based mechanism for
> concrescence. That is so fundamental for process theology and since it
> claims to be science friendly, I think it should be make explicit. Also
> since his approach affirms efficient causation, I don't see how he can also
> affirm human freedom or divine persuasion unless he also appeals to quantum
> indeterminacies.
I repeat my earlier point: There is a basic distinction between belief that
there is or is not a deity who acts in the world (MN & ON [ontological naturalism]), but
little is to be gained by dividing MN into various sub-categories of naturalism. All
that terms like "coercive" or "non-coercive" do is to provide emotion-laden handles that
are useful for rhetorical purposes. What those who accept MN but reject ON need to do
is speak about how they believe God does in fact act in the world.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 03 2003 - 09:34:28 EDT