Good communication is my point. This is why we need to say that Matter in
Random Motion can be understood theistically or atheistically. In a
Christian perspective MIRM is not autonomous of God will, plan, purpose,
governance, sustenence, and concurrence. I will not speak of such a beast.
Using your terminology, matter in random motion IS smoothly blended
theistic action. It does no good in my mind to give away the store by
recognizing something in their worldview that does not exist in our
worldview. The bottom line is that we see God's action everywhere and
unbelievers see it no where. But the creational realities that we both
observe are the same!
Not to drag us into a presuppositional vs. evidentialist apologetics
debate, but even though "they think about the world without God", they
really know that God exists because of the evidence in creation and the
evidence within them. In my opinion, a Biblical apologetic starts with the
assumption that the unbeliever really does know that God exists and that he
is accountable to him (after all, he is without excuse), but he
*suppresses* the truth. Now that's the message of Romans 1!
> Terry says,
>>I think that it is a severe compromise of the
>>Biblical perspective to create a category such as matter in random motion
>>(MIRM) in order to communicate. I'm all for communication but I'm not
>>about to let terms and concepts be introduced that essentially beg the
>>question and then force us to come up with convoluted models about how God
>>interacts with the world.
> Doesn't good communication require using terms that are understood by
>your reader/listener? If a person's worldview is that everything in the
>universe occurs due to "matter in random motion", MIRM accurately describes
>this view. Then this worldview can be contrasted with a theistic
>>Why is not the simplest thing to point out the
>>fundamental problem to start with? If we think that our belief in God is
>>that fundamental to our thinking about the universe, how can start the
>>discussion with the unbeliever on their terms, i.e. that it is possible to
>>think about the world without God.
> Because *they* do "think about the world without God."
> As an educator, I don't understand why it is problematic to "speak the
>language of a person" in order to help him learn a new concept. This is a
>fundamental principle of communication. Don't we often use terms (murder,
>hate, racism,...) to describe things that we don't agree with?
> Well, it's time to go now. I'll respond to the rest of Terry's post
>(and Allan's and Keith's) tomorrow morning.
Terry M. Gray, Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801