Re: [asa] An Evolutionary Theory of Right and Wrong

Now we are confusing two different issues. God being 'superfluous'
scientifically speaking and God being necessary from a faith
perspective. As a Christian we believe that God is necessary for
whatever happens, or at least that God is responsible or involved in
whatever happens. As a scientist however, we do not see God necessary
for the motion of planets (although Newton toyed with the idea) and
that's because His Creation in many ways is self-sufficient, even
though as Christians we believe that He was and is involved.

Does God act through secondary causes? For me it makes sense,
especially when looking at such concepts as free will.

So in the end I agree with you. What I am pointing out is that when
science finds that God is superfluous, that this does not necessary
mean that God is unnecessary or necessary. That's a conclusion we
arrive at through faith.

On Nov 1, 2006, at 7:53 AM, Terry M. Gray wrote:

> Pim,
>
> In that case I'd probably disagree rather strongly with you. God is
> necessary for whatever happens. Reality does not exist apart from
> his sustaining role. "Nature" does not exist autonomously of His
> governance and concurrence. However, it may be the case that God
> acts in such a way via secondary causation that he appears
> "superfluous". That is to say that He governs and concurs with
> secondary causes and other agents in a such a way that the action
> can be attributed to the secondary cause. I'm not 100% that I
> actually believe this, but, in fact, much of our understanding of
> the world (science broadly construed) seems to be consistent with
> such a "hidden" role for God.
>
> So, using your words I am saying that God both involved and
> necessary. God is only superfluous in the sense that we can explain
> at some level phenomena without appealing to Him.
>
> TG

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 1 13:11:24 2006