Here I thought all this was covered under Providence, which is essential
to theism. Is there a tacit assumption of a semi-deistic theory of
"Nature" in some of the discussion?
On Fri, 03 Aug 2001 12:40:30 -0400 "Howard J. Van Till"
> Larry Johnston, in response to Peter Ruest says:
> > Peter - Thanks x 10^6 for that beautiful analysis of our situation
> > sequence space. It
> > looks to me like this leaves us with two options:
> > 1, we adopt Van Til's hypothesis of ultra-smart atoms or
> > 2. Assume that Someone has been
> > injecting huge amounts of information into the Universe, from
> > Other options?
> A couple of comments:
> 1. If atoms are "ultra-smart" ( I would have said "robustly equipped
> their Creator with formational capabilities") it would, of course,
> be a
> manifestation of the Creator's creativity (in conceiving what would
> required) and generosity (in giving what was required).
> 2. However, having found David Ray Griffin's development of
> divine action very helpful, I would be happy to consider the
> that this "non-coercive" divine action is the key factor that leads
> exercise of the universe's robust formational economy to be as
> fruitful as it is. I have sometimes referred to this in the language
> God's "blessing" as the kind of divine action that leads the action
> creatures to be fruitful. cf Genesis 1:22.
> In this manner, divine action is both essential and effective, but
> does not
> constitute irruptive, overpowering intervention, which generally
> strikes me
> as a violation of the being originally given to the Creation. In
> process theology, divine action is not merely something that is
> inserted into an otherwise Godless process to bridge a "capability
> gap," but
> is an essential factor (present in all that happens) in an enriched
> of what is "natural."
> A question:
> What does it mean to say that "Someone has been injecting
> information into
> the Universe, from outside"? What kind of action does "injecting
> information" represent? To use the Griffin categories, would it be
> "coercive," or "non-coercive"?
> Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 03 2001 - 14:55:59 EDT