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

The idea that God created through evolution (cosmic & biological) can be called deism only when that view is caricatured as "God created the first hydrogen and said 'Evolve.'" (A recent quote from someone but I can't recall who.) Such views are held by some & people & then are properly called deism But this characterization is quite inaccurate for those who believe that God is actually at work in the evolutionary process.

What is missing in a lot of views across the spectrum, from YEC to TE, is adequate emphasis on God's ongoing activity in the world, creatio continua.

Shalom,
George

---- Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
> 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 16:04:42 2009