Re: Whose Burden of Proof?

George wrote:
> 2) More fundamentally, it's unrealistic to expect a detailed explanation
of the
> "causal joint" between creator & creatures - at least if one is going to
maintain the
> distinction between them. (& if that is ontological dualism, so be it.)

You may be right that highly detailed explanations are not forthcoming.
However, there are folks who are working pretty hard on fairly detailed
candidates. _Chaos and Complexity: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action_
and _Evolutionary and Molecular Biology: Scientific Perspectives on Divine
Action_ to mention a couple of books. Do you think these efforts are
unnecessary or misguided?

The issue that I run across in my travels is that there are individuals who
want a well reasoned faith but are confronted with rhetoric from the
supposedly scientifically grounded Dawkins and Dennetts of the world? In our
pluralistic society it is not enough just to invoke scripture. They wonder
if there are competing religious schemes to the materialist viewpoint where
things like piety and prayer mean more than some psychological mechanism.
What are theologians to say to those folks?

> Divine action via creatures is not like the interaction between 2
physical systems like the EM field &
> charged particles. The best that we can do is to construct plausible
models or
> metaphors which are based on our understanding of the way things work in
the world and
> constrained by what scripture says about God's actions.

Agreed.

> All of the 10 models of divine
> action which Barbour presents are of this type & none of them - including
process
> theology and the "world as God's body" model which some feminists like -
really
> "explains" how God can interact with physical agents.

Barbour may not have attempted explanations but there are those who are. I
recently read a paper by a process philosophy oriented scientist/philosopher
who technically explores the concrescence process via quantum theory.
Interestingly enough in Griffin's new book _Re-enchantment without
Supernaturism_ he rejects supernaturalism but doesn't offer another
mechanism for concrescence(the locus of free will and divine lure).

Seems to me that faithing individuals who are struggling with this issue
would be satisfied if there are some *reasonable* science based theories on
how divine action or intelligent design could take place. Clearly no
definitive answer will be forthcoming, but at least individuals who want a
well reasoned faith don't have to abandon that faith because of silence or
radical skepticism from the religious community.

Steve Petermann
Received on Tue Dec 2 16:14:47 2003