Re: [asa] Random thoughts

[below]

Alexanian, Moorad wrote:

>One major problem in the integration of the Christian faith and the
>scientific endeavor is how the Creator interacts with His creation. Now
>God "entered' the creation in the flesh as Jesus the Christ, which
>constitutes the apex of interaction, the very presence of God in Nature.
>Of course, this past event is considered the essence of the Christian
>faith. Therefore, there is evidence of God who interacts with Nature.
>However, there is a multitude of ways to reconcile the "fact" of
>evolution with the Christian faith.
>
>1) Everything was in the initial conditions in the initial act of
>creation. I guess the jargon is "front loaded." Problem, the existence
>of life, conscious beings, free wills, etc. if, say, one considers the
>Big Bang origin of the universe. In addition, this is a clear case of
>deism.
>
>
I'm not so sure about this statement. To me, it is not so clear that
this must be a clear case of deism. In fact, this was a point I
attempted to make in a prior posting concerning the seeming (perhaps
transient - at leasted in the posted discussion?) focus on God's
sustaining of the physical universe as a necessary "God-job". I think it
is quite possible that this "sustaining" perspective may be more about
our felt need for God's active and responsive interaction with our
circumstance than a logical imperative.

If an existence apart from the physical is a given "prior" (whatever
that means) to creation of the physical universe, then one might
reasonably assert that this presumeably non-physical domain of existence
did not somehow go away at the point of Creation. To suggest that there
is no basis for or history of interactions with man at a level of
existence that transcends the physical would seem to me to raise all
sorts of questions with respect to fundamental Christian tenets.
Creation could certainly be front-loaded and still permit free will,
something like the way we plant a garden. All that "suffers" is our
concept of God's all-knowing, something we impute to God based on our
very limited sensibilities (and hopes), without really being able to
know much at all in the big picture about the transcendant Creator.

To my way of thinking, God could indeed have created a garden that did
not need tending, knowing all the time that what He was after was the
ability to enjoy and deploy the blooms to ends in which the garden was
only a necessary predicate. Even in this simple analogy, the familiar
aesthetic attributes of the garden are something beyond the mere physical.

If the Big Bang physical "thing" is an end unto itself, then an absence
of God-interaction with the physical connects with deism. But if there
is any sense of further purpose, of the physical world being a predicate
for a larger purpose with a different character, then there is room in
the creation act and a resultant self-sustaining physical creation that
still transcends mere deism.

>2) God interacts with the universe in spurts. Somewhat like a Christian
>"punctuated equilibrium." How to discern the time this occurred is
>problematic.
>
>3) The Christian view is that God sustaining the creation and so the
>interaction is omnipresent. This would entangle God's actions with the
>running of Nature and people so interwoven that it would be very hard to
>disentangle. Is then best to consider the domain of science to be the
>purely physical and suppose that the Christian faith would speak,
>essentially, on the nonphysical aspect of all that exists. This may be
>the track to follow. Of course, how the two extremes jibe in the middle
>seems to be beyond human comprehension.
>
>
The entanglement would seem to be as you suggest. In our experience, the
beauty of a garden is not (non-physically) enjoyed without the physical
garden. So our experience says that there are interactions,
overlappings, and areas of infusion between unlike but related things
that are significant.

The very process of making two different things "jibe" implies that
something needs to be adjusted in order to make the two things
consonant. In the subject du jour, the "two extremes" by definition jibe
in the fullest reality. The question is indeed, "How".

We have long religious traditions and we have robust individual and
corporate worldviews, all of which unflaggingly resist making
adjustments on that side of the equation. It is an exquisite challenge,
opportunity, and even privilege offered to a thoughtful Christian to
make adjustments on BOTH sides of the equation as understanding grows.
It would appear that the very nature of a progressively understandable
Creation, and the evolutionary revelation that results, "expects" us to
thoughtfully and humbly explore that "middle". That entails engaging
both of "the two extremes" with integrity, acknowledging that our
traditions and worldviews are at least in part OUR creations and may
require some adjustment as well. All of this is to say that it might be
a lapse in stewardship to give in too easily to the "beyond human
comprehension" attribute, even though there will always certainly be
much for which this description is truly appropriate.

Though the prayer is best known in a different context, it came to mind
as I was about to end this post, and seemed remarkably appropos the
discussion, ..."God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things
that cannot be changed, courage to change the things that should be
changed, and the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other."

That is indeed the continuing challenge.

Or so it seemeth to me. JimA [ASA Friend]

>Moorad
>
>
>
>
>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 Thu Apr 26 13:45:44 2007