Re: Cross & ID

George Murphy wrote:

> David -
>
> 3d, grant for the sake of argument that we can know God from natural
> phenomena apart from faith. Those phenomena must be ones that Paul &
> his readers in the 1st century Mediterranean world knew about.
> Needless to say, they knew nothing about the blood clotting cascade or
> information theory.
>

Are you suggesting that there is (or should be) some fundamental
difference in our natural theology today because we understand these
things and they didn't? Your other points which I didn't include above,
made it clear that natural theology by itself is incomplete and even
dangerous. That assessment seems sound enough. But regarding natural
theology such as it is, I have trouble seeing any distinction between
earlier epochs and ours. We are further along a technological road, and
so we have a different horizon of the unknown in view. They weren't as
far along and so their mysteries, like ours, were just in front of
them. The 'God of the Gaps' straw man has always posited something that
Christian/Hebrew thinking should never grant (has it ever?): that God
is /limited/ to our gaps in knowledge. Meanwhile if some find the gaps,
whatever they be relative to this epoch or that, to be a stimulus for
praise, more power to them! If new psalms were written by Spirit-filled
people today, they would no doubt incorporate our current horizons of
knowledge and the veiled mysteries just beyond. Whether or not we
anticipate learning more about those things so as to retract their
status as "mysterious" should be entirely irrelevant. God is a God of
all truth, understood or not, right?

--merv
Received on Mon Jan 2 12:31:27 2006