At 08:21 PM 1/2/2006, David Opderbeck wrote to George Murphy:
>Interesting, George. As to folks like Dawkins who are intelligent
>and well educated yet don't see evidence for God in creation,
>wouldn't Paul's comments about God abandoning some people to the
>hardness of their hearts also have something to do with it?
>
>Just curious -- do you reject the idea of natural law as well?
## I welcome George's correction if I'm wrong, but from what he's
written, he appears to me to be attracted to one or more of the
pantheistic ideas of the new age / process theology movement, so I
would think that he probably leans toward holding the belief that
nature operates according to general principles or laws and doesn't
claim that God temporarily abolishes a natural law in order to
perform a miracle, only to reinstate the natural law afterwards.
Instead, I'd bet that he would say that the laws of nature now in
effect are not the only laws that nature might have - that another
set of natural laws might also be coherent.
That he might argue something to the effect that God, whose mind is
the ultimate guarantee of the coherence of nature, might change the
natural laws if He thought that He could improve the cosmos that way.
My opinion on the subject is merely that these "new age" ideas aren't
new at all; they are merely variations on ideas that have been
proposed many times before and are just being re-cycled.
~ Janice
Received on Tue Jan 3 12:02:18 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 03 2006 - 12:02:18 EST