Re: T/D #1 (Theistic/Deistic definitions)

Craig Rusbult (
Mon, 3 Nov 1997 14:27:41 -0600

Last week, Moorad shared some useful ideas in an important area:

> This [limitation on human knowledge] is somewhat analogous to the
>statement that Romeo and Juliet cannot conclude that they are part of a play
>written by Shakespeare. Only if Shakespeare wills his appearance into the
>play will the protagonists know of his existence.
>our mathematical
>laws don't describe, nor attempt to describe, the whole of the human
>experience. To claim otherwise would be nonsensical.
> The historical element of Christianity is all important,
>St. Paul already made that clear. People like Joseph Campbell speak about
>myths and indicate that the historicity of Christianity is not important
>that what is important are the myths. That is pure nonsense. I believe that
>Weinberg and Campbell do not BELIEVE that Christ is who He said He is. Their
>conclusions follow from that premise alone and has nothing to do with their
>erudition in their field of studies. Like evolutionary theorists when they
>state that "evolution is a fact," Weinberg and Campbell conclude what they
>already assumed.

Yes. But one advantage of Campbell's approach is that he can get a PBS
series because his views are claimed to be based on academic erudition, not
religious belief. {similar for Deepok Chopra,...}


Don responds (in part) by saying,

> "the final laws of nature" would indeed govern "the whole of human
>experience," as well as "everything else" about our universe (as I take
>to mean in this context), including all of the actions and revelations of
>the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit in the Bible and elsewhere.
>application is that when "the final laws of nature" are taken with this
>meaning, seeing God revealed in them is not just "natural theology" in its
>usual meaning, but seeing God revealed in anything He has created in this
>universe, including the Bible, miracles, promptings of the Holy Spirit, etc.

a nice summary


In response to this (and...), Moorad says:

>I find it hard to picture holding in my own hands a book of rules that
>governs EVERYTHING including myself--my immediate thoughts and future plans.
> It is
>not the Word of God, contained in the Bible, but it is the word of God's
>power, external to the Bible, which upholds all things and which brought the
>whole thing into being.

....<snip>.... Then Moorad explains some of the technical difficulties
involved in the human construction of a "Grand Unified Theory of
Everything", and concludes,
>I do believe that there is such a book of rules which governs everything.
>But such a book can only be in the hands of God. I find it the apex of
>human pride to say that one day human efforts will write such a book.