Regarding George's three points:
1) Objectivity in science implies that man takes himself out of the subject
matter of science. That is why I doubt it very much that science can "derive"
(explain) man. Recall that the subject matter of science is detectable, in
principle, by physical devices only. I would be more specific and indicate
that it is man that "detects" God, rather than invoke theology which is the
study of God. For instance, in the Christian faith God entered the
creation--that is history.
2) God sustains the creation---He is self-existing while the creation is
not--and it is a rational system. The rationality of the creation indicates
already that God lets certain things happen. But one cannot restrain Him from
doing what He thinks is needed at a particular time. Recall that we cannot,
despite all our knowledge, predict the future.
3) I think the interaction of God with the universe is somewhat analogous to
the interaction of the soul with our body and mind.
Merry Christmas to you all.
>===== Original Message From george murphy <email@example.com> =====
>Walter Hicks wrote:
>> george murphy wrote:
>>> This is not an accurate statement of either my view or (I
>>> Howard's. I certainly wouldn't say that "God [is] doing nothing
>>> anymore" but
>>> that God is acting within the limits of the patterns characterizing
>>> processes. This need not mean that all the information was stored
>>> in the first seconds of the universe. We don't understand how the
>>> information can be generated by natural processes but that points to
>>> a need for
>>> better scientific understanding rather than an appeal to direct
>>> divine action,
>>> which would be a classic example of a God of the gaps argument.
>> Why is valid for scientists to assume that all unknown phenomena must
>> be explained by "God acting within the limits of natural causes", but
>> invalid for anyone to suggest that perhaps God may have had a direct
>> hand in it? The Bible seems to suggest that God is not shy about
>> interacting with His Universe.
> 1) Scientists qua scientists say nothing at all about how God acts
>but only about how natural processes occur within the world. Speaking
>about how God does or does not act in relation to those processes is a
>matter of theology rather than natural science.
> 2) I have not said that suggestions of God's direct action outside
>"the limits of the patterns characterizing natural processes" is invalid
>but IMO the best theological approach, consistent with the belief that
>God's character is revealed most fully in the cross, is to emphasize
>that God does, as much as possible, act withinin those limits. For more
>detail see my article "Chiasmic Cosmology and Creation's Functional
>Integrity" in the March 2001 PSCF.
> 3) Certainty God interacts with the universe. The question at
>issue here has been "How?"
>George L. Murphy
>"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 23 2001 - 09:49:53 EST