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

My read of the history of theodicy has shown that by trying to get God
out of the pit we dig a bigger one for ourselves. I would almost
classify "I have the lesser theodicy problem" argument as a type of
logical fallacy. People may pick up a pattern from my recent posts
that I am coming from the Sergeant Schultz (from Hogan's Heroes)
school of theology. "I know nothing, NOTHING." That's one of the
advantages of not having a stratospheric intelligence. We have as
former Secretary Rumsfeld put it, known unknowns.

Rich Blinne (Member ASA)

On Feb 18, 2008, at 2:21 PM, Randy Isaac wrote:

> I would rather think that we all have a big problem of theodicy
> which no one has fully resolved. Whether someone has a "bigger" or
> "lesser" problem, I don't know how to judge nor do I know if it
> matters. Are you implying that TE's have a "bigger problem" because
> they see divine guidance in all things and are therefore attributing
> disease, suffering and death directly to divine will? If so,
> wouldn't anyone else, ID or PC or whatever, have an equally "bigger
> problem" because they see divine intervention as something that
> occurs as needed to generate the organism that God willed into
> being? How would that lessen the problem of disease, suffering, and
> death? Does the perceived absence of such intervention absolve God
> of responsibility in those cases?
>
> Randy
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: drsyme@cablespeed.com
> To: David Opderbeck ; Rich Blinne
> Cc: 'Randy Isaac' ; asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 12:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action
>
> But many random mutations cause disease and suffering, or death.
> This imo is a bigger problem for TE than God's mechanism of action is.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Feb 18 16:45:19 2008