Fw: [asa] Vatican Astronomer Replaced

"By every standard I'm aware of, those remarks are heretical. "

That by itself means little as I am not familiar with the standards with which you are familiar.

But in proper context the statement may seem less heretical. I assume you read the full article or just the quote mine?
When the article is fully read, I believe that Janice's position as usual is untenable and irresponsible. But that's just my personal opinion, others have already voiced how her 'contributions' serve to further trivialize the ASA list. A more cynical person might even conclude that this is perhaps the ultimate goal. After all, how best to silence the voice of reason...

The quote continues

A short answer for the theologian is, of course, that God is transcendent, outside of space and time, and knows everything
simultaneously. But God is also immanent in the universe.

But this reasoning about God's knowledge from within the universe does not place a limitation upon God.
Far from it. It reveals a God who made a universe that has within it a certain dynamism and thus participates
in the very creativity of God. If they respect the results of modem science, religious believers must move
away from the notion of a dictator God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along
regularly. Perhaps God should be seen more as a parent. Scripture is very rich in this thought. It presents,
indeed anthropomorphically, a God who gets angry, who disciplines, a God who nurtures the universe.
Theologians already possess the concept of God's continuous creation. I think to explore modem science
with this notion of continuous creation would be a very enriching experience for theologians and religious
believers. God is working with the universe. The universe has a certain vitality of its own like a child does.
You discipline a child but you try to preserve and enrich the individual character of the child and its own
passion for life. A parent must allow the child to grow into adulthood, to come to make its own choices, to
go on its own way in life. In such wise does God deal with the universe.

and

These are very weak images, but how else do we talk about God. We can only come to know God by
analogy. The universe as we know it today through science is one way to derive analogical knowledge of
God. For those who believe modem science does say something to us about God, it provides a challenge, an
enriching challenge, to traditional beliefs about God. But there is always the temptation in this reasoning to
make God into our own image and likeness. This would be idolatry.
 

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Todd Pedlar <pedlto01@luther.edu>
To: Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>; Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net>
Cc: asa@calvin.edu; pedlto01@luther.edu
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:28:15 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Vatican Astronomer Replaced

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:04:43 -0500, Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Aha heretical beliefs. Sounds like you oppose intelligent design as well
> as Ann Coulter as well then? Or are heretical beliefs just in the eye of
> the beholder.
> Perhaps Janice can point us to some examples of Coyne's position?

Perhaps you didn't read the quotation pulled from Coyne's
own conference notes, which are available at:

http://www.aei.org/docLib/20051027_HandoutCoyne.pdf

The quotation from Janice's earlier posting (below your
remarks, but perhaps you missed them in your haste to
post your comments) is:

"If we take the results of modern science seriously, it is difficult to
believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient in the sense of the
scholastic philosophers. Science tells us of a god who must be very
different from God as seen by the medieval philosophers and theologians.
Let us ask the hard question. Could, for instance, God after a billion
years in a fourteen billion year old universe have predicted that human
life would come to be? Let us suppose that God possessed the theory of
everything, knew all the laws of physics, all the fundamental forces. Even
then could God know with certainty that human life would come to be? If we
truly accept the scientific view that, in addition to necessary processes
and the immense opportunities offered by the universe, there are also
chance processes, then it would appear that not even God could know the
outcome with certainty. God cannot know what is not knowable."

By every standard I'm aware of, those remarks are heretical. They
have made a man out of God, a limited being that is incapable of
understanding his own creation... and presume limitations on Him that
are contrary to the Bible's teaching.

Sorry, Pim, but Janice is right here to point out the heresy involved
in Coyne's remarks. I know you see eye to eye with Janice on just
about nothing, but at least you should be able to admit that his
ideas run contrary to the teaching (at least) of the Roman Catholic
church. We won't get into how far astray his ideas have fallen from
Biblical truth.

Todd
___________________________________________________
Todd K. Pedlar
Assistant Professor of Physics, Luther College
pedlto01@luther.edu
___________________________________________________
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and
won't change the subject." -- Winston Churchill

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Aug 22 23:03:32 2006