Re: [asa] List of positions on origins

"The belief that God is the ultimate cause of everything that happens, working through secondary causes, includes everything that happens in culture as well as in the biological realm." - George Murphy
 
"one important distinction would be between those whose TE (or EC) views are distinctively
Christian &hich are merely 'theistic'." - George Murphy

Let me put these two statements together and ask a question: Can a theist reject the distinction between 'primary' (or ultimate) and 'secondary' causality and still be a Christian?
 
In other words, following the link below which draws on Alistair McGrath's text (2001), can one say that Aquinas' views of 'causality' are now less coherent and thus harder to accept than previously thought, e.g. in the primary/secondary dichotomy, given that new views have entered the arena?
 
http://www.stjohnadulted.org/The_01.htm#God%e2%80%99s%20Action%20Within%20the%20World
(see section 5 - God's action within the world)
 
Let me confirm that I am interested in the topic of 'origins' which is the title of the thread (thanks for re-naming it and correcting the spelling, George), meaning not just 'origin of life' or 'origin of humankind,' but 'origins of human culture' as well. One could say there is a 'causes and effects joint' that is missing or waiting for elaboration here. Though it would seem that Polkinghorne's appeal to 'agency' (e.g. considering quantum events) is most suitable for 'science and theology' interface, it is rather impersonal compared to say the way Margaret Archer approaches the term (e.g. being human), which actually speaks about culture and agency within a Christian worldview. George says (paraphrased) "God is the ultimate cause of everything that happens...in culture," yet 'causal agency' can be spoken about by physicists and by sociologists with surprisingly different emphases.
 
Also, the notion of secondary causality's 'indirect action' or 'acting indirectly' would seem to suggest that any 'bio-physical evolution' is not 'directed' or (an even more loaded term) is 'unguided.' In such a view, the safekeeping of science from 'gaps' arguments appears to be higher in priority for an individual than taking a positive view of teleogical explanations and the language that expresses them as being relevant for 'science' too.
 
The main question, here, however, it seems to me, is the one about 'primary' and 'secondary' versus other ways to view causes and their effects. George has many times spoken about this in passing, but I fear it is first simply an appeal to the authority of Aquinas, rather than to Aristotle or others, and second, does not allow for the possibility that a better way of speaking about causes and effects in our electronic-information age is available.
 
"What, for its partisans, is the strength of the idea of primary and secondary causality is, for its critics, its greatest weakness." - John Polkinghorne
 
J.P. Moreland, for example, also addresses primary and secondary causation in the text below, as only one potential model for the relationship of science and theology (which also speaks of the 'natural' vs. 'supernatural' perspective and appeals to the distinction between empirical science and historical science, which will get Moorad interested):
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0180a.html
His critics will perhaps not fail to note that Steven Meyer is referenced by Moreland for a new way to look at the issue of primary and secondary causes in science.
 
A bit of thinking out loud with questions and a yet another friendly challenge to George,
 
Gregory __________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now at http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Feb 20 01:03:22 2009