Re: [asa] List of positions n Origins (question on DE)

I don't disagree with George's point (below); indeed, I've often said to
people that process theism is not equivalent to deism (which George defines
pretty well here). That's why I prefer a TE/process category.

Ironically, I have sometimes heard theologians themselves (who ought to
know better) categorize as "deism" the common evangelical view that God
created the universe via the big bang and created humans ex nihilo. I
suppose (to hazard a guess) that those theologians see the denial of
evolution as implying what they would see as an inadequate view of divine
immanence--and an inadequate view of divine immanence (to say the least) is
a characteristic of deism. That's the only logic I can find there, if any
at all. In reality, most "liberal" theologians have the same kinds of grave
doubts about the authenticity of biblical miracles that the deists had,
which makes them (in my book) pretty darn close to deists on that score.
George is right to caution about focusing solely on miracles for this
purpose (the "deism" category), but we would be wrong to ignore views about
miracles for this purpose.

At the same time, numerous ID advocates (in private conversations) have
equated an alternative evangelical view--that God created the universe via
the big bang and created humans via evolution--with deism. What they have
failed to consider, as I point out, is the simultaneous affirmation of the
incarnation and resurrection. No real deist could believe both of those
things, esp not the former. Thus, if one looks only at views on origins and
leaves out christology, one can also draw the wrong conclusions.

This whole "deism" thing needs to be clarified in a highly visible way by
someone who really knows what they are talking about. And, this includes
the history of deism itself. We don't really have a good one, IMO, that
stands up to what we know now about the 17th and 18th century thinkers who
are usually called "deists." That's a doctoral dissertation/book waiting to
be written.

Ted

>>> <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com> 2/19/2009 2:38 PM >>>
In process theology God is one cause of everything that happens in the
world but not the sole cause. (I.e., everything cannot be traced back
ultimately to God as First Cause, as in traditional theology.) Thus a
process theologian can't be a deist unless one's views about miracles are
the only criterion. (I am using "deist" in the sense that Barbour does in
his typology of views on divine action - i.e., the belief that God created
the world but doesn't interact with it further. As an historian Ted may
have a somewhat different take.)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Feb 19 14:57:40 2009