Re: [asa] God, Chance and Purpose

Good observations and Bartholomew takes pains throughout his book to
elucidate all of these nuances and, with his mathematical precision, to
differentiate among all those effects. I couldn't possibly repeat or
summarize all that.
Randy

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Campbell" <pleuronaia@gmail.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] God, Chance and Purpose

>> He takes issue with the approach by Russell, Murphy and others who find
>> room
>> for God's providence in the cloak of quantum uncertainty. He quotes
>> Stephen
>> Hawking as writing "If one likes one could ascribe this randomness to
>> God,
>> but it would be a very strange kind of intervention: there is no evidence
>> that it was directed towards any purpose. Indeed if it were, it would, by
>> definition not be random." Bartholomew continues "It is part of the last
>> sentence of the quotation that touches the nub of the matter. Randomness
>> is
>> what we have when all purpose and direction is excluded. We cannot,
>> therefore, smuggle purpose in by the back door under cover of randomness.
>> "If, on the other hand, the equations of quantum theory do describe
>> genuine
>> randomness, there is no room for action by God mediated through
>> individual
>> events at the quantum level."
>
> This seems to confound different types of "randomness". There is the
> fact that quantum events are, as far as we can tell, mathematically
> best described by a probabilistic model. This is mathematically
> random. But the type of mathematical model does not tell us whether
> there is purpose or direction. Likewise, "there is no evidence that
> it was directed towards any purpose"-there is no mathematical
> evidence, but then again there is nothing in a mathematical or physics
> study of the behavior of the electrons in this computer that helps
> understand my purpose in sending the email. To find evidence of
> purpose, don't look at quantum physics (although ID would tell you
> to). Rather, look and see whether the outcome of the quantum events
> achieves a particular result that seems to reflect a particular
> purpose. Also entagled here is the question of how much difference
> quantum events make on the macroscopic world. Of course, they are
> interrelated, but the number of cases in which it makes any
> significant difference to history whether atom X does this versus that
> is probably a very small fraction of the total number of quantum
> events. E.g., if some sort of intervention-style action is involved
> in making a certain group of atoms long ago, in a supernova far away,
> generate a cosmic ray that produces a key mutation leading towards
> humans, no amount of monitoring the decay of a radioactive sample in a
> lab will detect that. Cf. a LeFanu story in which a fortune-telling
> stunt was part of an elaborate trap. Other people got rather random
> and meaningless messages, but the victim got a personalized fortune to
> lure him on.
>
> There's also a problem of intervention versus continual guidance,
> sustenance, etc.
>
> Yet another complication is the unsolved question of whether "can God
> resolve quantum uncertainty" is really a variant on "can God make a
> four-sided triangle". Just as the Trinity manages to be three and
> one, atomic-scale particles manage to have features that seem strange
> to us but which may not be precisely resolvable.
>
>> Bartholomew also calls attention on p. 183 to Miller's "Perspectives on
>> an
>> Evolving Creation" and specifically names both Keith Miller and Terry
>> Gray,
>> citing their discussion of randomness.
>
> There is a discussion in that book on different levels of randomness
> (mathematical versus metaphysical).
>
>> What is his suggestion? On p. 192 he says "There is no physical
>> mechanism--there does not need to be--but chance and necessity alone are
>> sufficient to do the job in exactly the way God intended." In other
>> words,
>> the randomness we see is real and the individual "random" events are not
>> individually determined by God but the macroscopic purpose and direction
>> is
>> accomplished through the randomness of the micro level. He goes on to
>> discuss human freedom in the same terms.
>
> Another way of describing the issue is asking whether God's will is a
> point or a region.
>
> It's somewhat moot as to whether a set of random events that
> inevitably bring about a particular result should really be called
> random. Molecules jiggle erratically in all directions, but
> increasing this random activity is increasing the temperature. One
> aspect is random, but another isn't. Similarly, just because someone
> doesn't know what atom will split and start a chain reaction doesn't
> absolve him of responsibility for setting off a nuclear weapon.
>
> --
> Dr. David Campbell
> 425 Scientific Collections
> University of Alabama
> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
>
> 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 Jun 5 12:39:33 2008