Re: [asa] Romans 1:20 (disregard my last post)

>So, by drawing a distinction and in essence denying God guides even
random events, the Intelligent Design Movement denies Scripture and
the providential care of God, just like Richard Dawkins. If Dawkins
was there to observe he would say God didn't do it because it was
"random". The author of Chronicles denies this.

Rich,

The problem I would have with your statement is the definition of "random".

Frederick Solomon: A random event is a "large" or visible effect with
a small, invisible, or non-existent cause." ... "A random experiment
is an experiment or observation which can be performed, at least in
thought, any number of times under the same relevant conditions. The
experiment is called "random" because the result or outcome cannot be
known in complete detail be knowing the relevant conditions".

Miller/Freund: "A set of observations, X1, X2, ... ,Xn constitutes a
random sample of size n from a finite population of size N if it is
chosen so that each subset of n of the N elements of the population
has the same probability of being selected."

Ok, so, to me then, the idea that each event is equally likely is
very much part of the idea of random.

So perhaps God is irrelevant in a random experiment. Here's my reasoning why:

If he (God, or anyone for that matter) "guides" the result by
making the outcomes no longer equally likely (ie, he perturbs the
probabilities?) then the events are simply no longer random. They
may appear random to some observers but they are not actually random.

What if F. Solomon is right, and the cause actually *is*
non-existent? Then God is definitely not relevant.

I think its likely both Dawkins and ID folks recognize these various
aspects of randomness.
I don't see how they are against the writer of Chronicles. Was that
writer claiming something to be random?

I am not deist (I dont believe God is only transcendent).
Neither am I panentheist (I dont believe God is completely immanent,
God comprising the universe but also being greater than the
universe).

Classical theism is in the middle(is an option somehwhere between)
those two. In those terms I therefore have trouble seeing the
conflict you are describing. Classical theists don't deny the
providential nature of God. As far as I can tell, they think God
started the universe, made laws about randomness, let the universe
proceed, and interferes with it anywhere He wants to anytime He wants
to, perturbing the probabilities. The only problem is, its sometimes
hard to detect where randomness, itself is overidden. But one
cannot solve that epistemological problem by defining A) that it is
always invisibly overridden by an immanent intelligence (panentheism)
or by defining B) that it is never overridden by a transcendant
intelligence (Deism). Thats my understanding. So, please allow me to
object to your objection.

Best Regards,
Dave C (ASA)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Nov 25 15:21:54 2007