"D. F. Siemens, Jr." wrote:
> As I considered Howard and Peter's views, which look different, I
> wondered just how different they are in their outworking. A part of the
> problem seems to be our view of nature, which usually seems to become
> Nature, which runs on its own. This is obviously deism or worse. But it
> results in Howard being accused of being a deist. However, his "fully
> gifted nature" is under the constant care of Providence, so that it is
> all within the will of the Almighty. Everything works, and works out, as
> God intends.
> Peter argues that the possibilities are so varied that God has to direct
> matters so that the world as we know it will result. This emphasizes
> "special occurrences" rather than constant care, but seems pretty close
> to a twin of Howard's view. It strikes me that what we have is more a
> matter of emphasis than of actual difference. Both hold that the world is
> as it is because God so wills it and makes it so.
> Am I missing something?
Perhaps one thing you're missing is that use of the term "Providence"
in describing Howard's view may be misleading. He has expressed some
approval of the process theology views of Griffin, which differ significantly
from traditional doctrines of providence in which God is omnipotent. In
process thought God is "lures" the world toward the goals God intends, but
one can't say that "all [is] within the will of the Almighty. Everything
works, and works out, as God intends."
But probably Howard will want to speak for himself on this.
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 27 2001 - 07:54:00 EDT