Re: [asa] God as Cause

*The craftsman uses the tool, for example, but in the case of nature, the
tool works on its own (according to naturalistic science), so we seem to
have lost the necessary connection.*

But in the case of nature, the tool does not "work on its own," because the
craftsman, God, also made the tool. Actually, the craftsman made a
tool-set, as well as the space in which the tool-set operates.

Say I design a virtual reality software program in which I place several
avatars that are capable of making choices from a decision set that
is bounded by the capabilities of the avatars and by the virtual world I
designed. The avatars start the game as "primitive" characters in that
their ability to interact with and influence their virtual environment is
severely limited. Depending on the choices the avatars make, they will
either die off, remain static, or their capabilities will increase. As the
capabilities of some of the avatars increase, those enhanced avatars develop
a broader range of choices, to the point where the choice of one avatar will
affect the range of choices and survival potential of other avatars.
Eventually, one group of avatars chooses to cooperate in a certain fashion
in a way that leads to the demise of any avatar that chose a different
survival strategy.

Would you say that I as the world-designer was not a "cause" of the
surviving avatar group's evolution? Certainly I was a cause. The game was
started by my fiat and was bounded by the rules I established. Now imagine
that somehow I am actually present in the game, such that, while the avatars
truly are making autonomous choices, no avatar could make a choice outside
my knowledge and permission, the withdrawal of my presence would cause the
entire game to collapse, and the outcome of the game is entirely consistent
with my purposes for the game. Even more clearly now, I'm a cause of the
outcome. No human analogy can really get there, but maybe this last one
moves towards this notion of God as sovereign creator working over, in and
through a creation graced with creatures that have some capacity for
autonomous action.

On 1/12/07, Bill Green <wgreen82004@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> *"the differing metaphysical levels of primary and secondary causation
> require us to say that any created effect comes totally and immediately from
> God as the transcendent primary cause and totally and immediately from the
> creature as secondary cause." *
>
> It does not make sense to me to speak of God as primary cause without
> defining the relationship between the primary and secondary causes.
> The craftsman uses the tool, for example, but in the case of nature, the
> tool works on its own (according to naturalistic science), so we seem to
> have lost the necessary connection.
>
> The only way I can conceive that such a primary/secondary cause idea would
> work in light of naturalistic, closed causal loop science is if the idea
> similar to the incarnation: God and man fully in Christ, God's activity and
> physical activity fully in nature. God was in Christ reconciling the world
> to himself and God is in nature working out his purposes. Of course, this
> is a mystery, but it is clear that we could speak of God controlling all
> events if we view natural process as the incarnation of God's activity or
> will.
>
> I suppose that would fit the scriptural criteria in that it allows for
> God's active and sovereign role and yet allows for the separation between
> God and creation, but it leaves the question of whether a natural
> explanation is in any sense complete.
>
> Certainly a physical account of Jesus' life is in no sense complete.
>
> How is it scriptural acceptable to speak of anything as being outside of
> God's Lordship? We are to take every thought captive and make it obedient
> to Christ, for from Him, through Him and to Him are all things.
>
> I struggle with this as a teacher. When I present natural laws and
> phenomena from a naturalistic perspective, without mention of God (I can't
> speak of God in a public school science class), I am afraid that I am
> violating these scriptural principles. How can any natural explanation be
> complete without mention of it's primary cause? It is like studying the
> paintings of Monet without acknowledging the one who painted them, or even
> that anyone in particular painted them.
>
> In fact, it's worse, because my silence teaches my students that it is
> possible or even an established fact that it all "just happened." If nature
> can create and run itself, then what is the place for any God? The question
> is not even raised.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill Green
>
> ------------------------------
> Need Mail bonding?
> Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A<http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/index;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTEwOARfcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx?link=ask&sid=396546091>for great
> tips from Yahoo! Answers<http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/index;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTEwOARfcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx?link=ask&sid=396546091>users.
>
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Web:  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.