Re: Whose Burden of Proof?

Steve Petermann wrote:
>
> 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?

        No. I think, e.g., that studies of QM & chaos can clarify the possibilities for
God & creatures both to have some freedom in their actions. But that is done by giving
a better understanding of the instruments with which God works, not of how God is able
to work with them.

> 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?

        I think that traditional views of providence in which God cooperates/concurs
with natural processes, supplemented by the kenotic view in which God limits actions
through those processes to what can be done in accord with rational laws & the
understanding that it is only faith that perceives God at work through those processes,
can provide an understanding of divine action which is consistent both with scripture &
our scientific understanding of the world.
   
> > 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).

        The divine "lure" is a metaphor which can be helpful for describing how God
interacts with living things but is pretty useless for talking about what God does with
quarks.
 
> 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.

        Theologies of divine action need to take into account current scientific
understandings of the world, but they should not be based upon them. Traditional
doctrines of providence would describe what God does in making the sun shine in terms of
divine cooperation with _whatever_ energy generating natural processes are taking place
in the sun. Whether those proceses are chemical combustion (as was thought ~300 years
ago) or gravitational contraction (as was thought ~150 years ago) or nuclear reactions
(as we think now) is not of fundamental theological importance.

                                                        Shalom,
                                                        George
>
> Steve Petermann

-- 
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/