Re: [asa] God as Cause

1) God doesn't "delegate" 2dary causes but concurs - not precurs - with
created agents.

2) We can't say with certainty whether or not a particular hypothetical
event would be due to direct or mediated divine action but there would have
to be very strong reasons to conclude the former.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>; "George Murphy"
<gmurphy@raex.com>
Cc: "Bill Green" <wgreen82004@yahoo.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 4:53 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] God as Cause

We are somewhat assured of the regularity of the Solar System,
notwithstanding those who are concerned with the dynamical stability of the
system, which we may ascribe to secondary causes-delegated by God. Suppose,
however, that an asteroid strikes the earth with ominous consequences. Is
that part of the regularity we insist upon or is it due to the direct action
of God?

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of David Opderbeck
Sent: Thu 1/4/2007 4:37 PM
To: George Murphy
Cc: Bill Green; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] God as Cause

George's excellent article refers briefly to the Thomistic understanding of
primary and secondary causes, which is an ancient and helpful way to look at
this question. Good article on this here:
http://www2.nd.edu/Departments//Maritain/ti98/carroll.htm

On 1/4/07, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:

Belief that God is the ultimate cause of all things (which is the classical
understanding of omnipotance) does NOT mean that God causes all things
directly instead of through secondary causes. The latter notion, though
popular in some circles, means that creatures are not causal agents at all
but mere inert things that God moves around. This would raise serious
questions about the good ness of creation. & it would mean that the
extensive regularities which science discovers & describes in its laws have
nothing to do with the properties of the things which it studies, but are
just due to the fact that God chooses to move them in regular ways - rather
in the way that the ways in which different chess pieces move have nothing
to do with the pieces themselves but are due to arbitrary rules imposed on
them from outside.

A PSCF article which deals with this, "Chiasmic Cosmology and Creation's
Functional Integrity," can be found at
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF3-01Murphy.html .

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Green <mailto:wgreen82004@yahoo.com>
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 3:58 PM
Subject: [asa] God as Cause

How many of you believe that God cause all things?

It seems that the Bible has a lot to say about causes.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and ??create calamity;
I, the Lord, do all these things.?'

Amos 4:13
For behold,
He who forms mountains,
And creates the ?wind,
?Who declares to man what ??his thought is,
And makes the morning darkness,
?Who treads the high places of the earth-
?The Lord God of hosts is His name.

Psalm 147:8-9
Who covers the heavens with clouds,
Who prepares rain for the earth,
Who makes grass to grow on the mountains.
?He gives to the beast its food,
And ?to the young ravens that cry.

Psalm 147: 15-18

He sends out His command to the earth;
His word runs very swiftly.
?He gives snow like wool;
He scatters the frost like ashes;
He casts out His hail like ?morsels;
Who can stand before His cold?
?He sends out His word and melts them;
He causes His wind to blow, and the waters flow.

These verses seem to teach that God causes all natural processes, from plate
tectonics (mountains) to wind and frost, growing grass and running water.

I have read some articles about "complementarity" on your website, but I am
not clear as to whether many of you believe that God actually directly
controls natural processes.

The "complementarity" view, it seems, could include a view in which the
theological perspective is superfluous or only necessary for certain
purposes. It seems to me that in order to avoid this situation, and in
order to affirm the Scriptural definitions given above, we must ascribe to
God the direct causation of all of these processes, and the scientific
explanations as descriptions of his activity. Scientific or material
"causes" are not "causes," but only sequential events, all caused by God.
How can we say, for example, that God causes the grass to grow when we are
in church, but then say that auxins and cytokinins cause it when we are in
the lab? If auxins and cytokinins are sufficient, then why invoke God at
all?

Thanks for your input.

Sincerely,

Bill Green

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com <http://mail.yahoo.com/>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Web:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com <http://www.davidopderbeck.com/>
Blog:   http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
MySpace (Music):  http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.