Re: [asa] anti-evolutionism and deism

In most, if not all of this discussion, there seems to be something of
an accompanying implicit suggestion that God may be sort of out of a job
(or a significant portion thereof) if He is not actively "running
things" in some physical sense (as contrasted with all of nature
basically running itself according to its internal rules and conditions,
once set in motion). The weight and effort given to some of the
arguments make it sound (whether intentional or not) like a major part
of God's work is to keep the (physical) plates spinning.

My point in this post is not to take issue with anyone's persuasion with
respect to the extent of God's involvement in our physical world, and
its history, and its sustenance. Instead it is just to observe (for the
sake of balance) that if in fact God's moment-by-moment or episodic
interaction with the physical were NOT required to keep our top
spinning, ordering the machinations of our physical context, I would
hardly think that God was out of a job.

In scripture passages like Micah 6:8, it would seem that God is
interested in how we humans learn to "walk" in the world He created, and
how we do relationships, including that with Himself. Tending to the
workings of the physical world would seem to be of at least subordinate
importance to these sorts of matters. We certainly live and function in
a physical context. Yet, it would seem that the essential nature of much
of what we are to do and be in light of God's expectations transcends
the physical. That does not mean that the physical is not an important
part of our expression of "being" and "doing", but I just suggest that
the expectations and the "being" and "doing" would not change their
character if God was indeed uninvolved in the day-to-day plate spinning
of the physical world.

That, of course, does not play well with some views of the nature of the
physical Creation. But it seems to me to be a confusion of sorts to
think that the primary obligation of us in the life we have been given
is to be in a specially-desired and developed relationship (a
non-physical one) with the Creator, and at the same time to think that
the very existence of God is somehow dictated by whether (or to what
extent) He interacts with something physical (which He created - most
likely to run in whatever way He intended, whether attended or not).

I personally take implications from the physical world and how it works
to help form my sense of the Creator. So the physical aspect of our
existence is far from unimportant to me. That domain is orderly. It is
vast. It can bring about things that are amazing in diversity and
complexity by means of what seem to be a few building blocks operating
in compliance with just a few basic rules. It's time dimension has an
extent and patience that is beyond our ken. And yet, it is most
remarkably understandable in measure and progressively disclosing as our
evolving understandings and tools enable. I take these affects of
Creation to be reflections, images if you will, of the Creator, and
indicative of an intent expressed in an underlying plan whose immensity
alone exceeds our grasp. And yet, not of these attributes of the
physical Creation absolutely require the constant, or even intermittant
physical direction or nuancing of the Creator. But then, of course,
neither does it preclude them.

Or so it seemeth to me...... JimA

David Opderbeck wrote:

> I think Louise's and Dave S.'s comments are dead-on.
>
> Here's also something I read recently by Wolfhart Pannenberg, which
> might be helpful (from "Towards a Theology of Nature, Essays on
> Science and Faith" ed. by Ted Peters ( http://tinyurl.com/2a4kau)):
>
>
> If the God of the Bible is the creator of the universe, then it is
> not possible to understand fully or even appropriately the
> proceses of nature without any reference to that God. If, on the
> contrary, nature can be appropriately understood without reference
> to the god of the Bible, then that God cannot be the creator of
> the universe, and consequently he cannot be truly God and be
> trusted as a source of moral teaching either. To be sure, the
> reality of God is not incompatible with some form of abstract
> knowledge concerning the regularities of natural processes, a
> knowledge that abstracts from the concreteness of physical reality
> and therefore may be able also to abstract from the presence of
> God in his creation. But such abstract knowledge of regularities
> should not claim full and exclusive competence regarding the
> explanation of nature; if it does so, the reality of God is denied
> by impliciation. The so-called methodological atheism of modern
> science is far from pure innocence. It is a highly ambiguous
> phenomenon. Yet its very possibility can be regarded as based on
> the unfailing faithfulness of the creator God to the creation,
> providing it with the unviolable regularities of natural processes
> that themselves become the basis of individual and more precarious
> and transitory natural systems -- from stars and mountains and
> valleys and oceons to the wonders of plants and animal life,
> resulting in the rise of the human species.
>
>
> ("Theological Questions to Scientists," pp. 15-16.)
>
>
> On 4/20/07, Dave Wallace <wdwllace@sympatico.ca
> <mailto:wdwllace@sympatico.ca>> wrote:
>
> To follow up on all the excellent notes but especially Jon Tandys and
> Michaels. I have never figured out if:
>
> 1)God established and maintains the laws that we observe
> or
> 2)The laws that we observe are simply the normal (ie usual) way
> that God
> interacts with the universe. Implies that God continually makes
> decisions as to how matter-energy and space-time will behave. This
> would imply a view of providence that in some matters at least is
> extremely particular.
>
> I tend to lean towards #1 but don't have any real solid reasons
> for that
> choice. The Bible does not seem to say anything that applies or at
> least I have not found it. Doubt any experiment could tell the
> difference and am not sure it matters in any case as I am not a deist.
>
> Dave W
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> <mailto: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 Mon Apr 23 22:11:04 2007