RE: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action

Humans exercise free will in spacetime. However, God is outside
spacetime. God's view of the whole of spacetime is like that in a
Minkowski diagram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_diagram )
where the whole of existence is laid down in front of God. The whole of
reality is like a Now for God since He is not embedded in spacetime.

Moorad

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Christine Smith
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 2:08 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action

Hi all,

I must say, I'm enjoying this thread thoroughly. Ted's
and John's answers in particular I found to be quite
insightful and eloquent :)

Terry--a question to you...you write here that: "From
God's point of view nothing is random, it's all
decreed and ordained. (And that goes also for the free
choices of free agents!)" We're coming from different
theological backgrounds/frameworks here, so maybe you
can help me understand--I just don't follow how this
can be a logical conclusion--if God decrees that
something will be a certain way--say, a (sinful)
choice I make, then how can I be truly "free" in any
sense of the word, and how can God not be the author
of evil? Doesn't it make more sense, logically and
theologically, to understand that though God is
all-knowing and all-powerful, He is also
self-limiting, and that He has chosen to limit His
powers by intentionally creating a universe that
contains elements of randomness and free will which He
interacts with, rather than "predicts" or "decrees" as
it were?

Thanks everyone for good food for thought!
In Christ,
Christine (ASA member)

--- "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu> wrote:

> Randy,
>
> I think you have understood him correctly.
>
> Personally, I think the only way out of this
> "problem" is to have God
> involved in some way in every single thing (even the
> most minute and
> the most fleeting) that happens. The Reformed
> theologians (and others)
> have called this concurrence and it is a
> sub-category of the doctrine
> of Providence.
>
> Westminster Confession of Faith:
>
> III, 1
> God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and
> holy counsel of his
> own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever
> comes to pass:
> yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,
> nor is violence
> offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the
> liberty or
> contingency of second causes taken away, but rather
> established.
>
> IV, 2
> Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and
> decree of God, the
> first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and
> infallibly; yet,
> by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall
> out, according to the
> nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely,
> or contingently.
>
> Random events are in the category of contingency.
> Thus, according to
> this historic Presbyterian and Reformed way of
> understanding
> scripture, even chance events are ordained by God.
>
> Logan Gage is mistaken to think that there is no
> difference between
> physical and metaphysical randomness. God "orders"
> some of his
> "decree" to "fall out" by chance events. Such events
> look entirely
> like chance events to us the human observer, even
> though they are
> completely ordered by God. Even Calvin talks about
> the ill-fortune
> (bad luck) of the fellow killed in the forest when a
> branch fell on
> him while passing by. But, no doubt, for Calvin it
> was part of God's
> plan and decree. I suppose it's semantics of sorts.
> I'm happy to call
> things that look like random events in terms of
> statistical analysis,
> random, even though I know that from God's
> perspective and purpose
> they are not at all random. From God's point of view
> nothing is
> random, it's all decreed and ordained. (And that
> goes also for the
> free choices of free agents!)
>
> Some discussion of all this applied to process
> theology, open theism,
> and intelligent design can be found in my paper
> "Give Me Some of That
> Old-Time Theology: A Reflection on Charles Hodge's
> Discussion of
> Concursus in Light of Recent Discussions of Divine
> Action in Nature"
> found on-line at
> http://www.asa3.org/gray/GrayASA2003OnHodge.html
>
> TG
>
> On Feb 14, 2008, at 8:16 PM, Randy Isaac wrote:
>
> > Jack Haas just drew my attention to Logan Gage's
> response to my
> > letter in the Jan 2008 issue of CT. I would
> greatly appreciate your
> > views on the last two paragraphs of his article.
> We have touched on
> > randomness several times in this forum and I
> believe it continues to
> > be one of the fundamental questions. Logan seems
> to believe that if
> > there is divine guidance there will necessarily be
> evidence of non-
> > randomness. Or have I misunderstood him?
> >
> > Randy
> >
>
> ________________
> Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
> Computer Support Scientist
> Chemistry Department
> Colorado State University
> Fort Collins, CO 80523
> (o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
>
>
>
>
> 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.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Feb 15 14:25:43 2008