Re: agreeing about a mere creation?

From: Peter Cook <pwcook@optonline.net>
Date: Sat Aug 20 2005 - 19:57:45 EDT

People,

Given this post, and those leading to it, I would like to see something on
what folks believe is the meaning of something like
"God being involved even in processes that are totally natural." In my
technical work, I have written many lines of code, and executed many designs
of circuits in use today, and I suppose one can say that when those lines of
code are executed or those circuits operate, I am involved - but this is
almost explicitly in a Deistic sense: the code or circuits are doing what
they were intended to do, but I am not "there" and if I were to die
tomorrow, the code and circuits would continue to function without me. I do
not think this is generally what we have in mind when we speak of God being
involved in His creation, or the creation being upheld by Him. What do we
mean? Is such a statement just a Christian type of political correctness?

Thanks,

Pete Cook
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Rusbult" <craig@chem.wisc.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: agreeing about a mere creation?

>
> Allan says,
> >I don't have any brilliant idea for how to tweak the sentence
>
> The two paragraphs I posted are not intended to be stand-alone, so
they
> would have to be tweaked (as suggested by Loren and Allan, and in other
> ways) to make a "statement" that would be more satisfactory.
>
> >somewhere on the page... it should be clear that Christians believe God
is
> >involved (providence, concurrence, words like that) even in processes
that
> >are "totally natural"
>
> Yes, it is. For example, the beginning of the page emphasizes that
> "natural" does not mean "without God." Later, I criticize "A Bad Argument
> against Theistic Evolution" and connect it with one type of "God of the
> gaps" theology:
>
> "What are the justified criticisms? First,... Second, an "only in the
> gaps" view -- which asserts (or implies) that God works ONLY in nature
> gaps, that God is not active in natural process, that "natural" means
> "without God" so "if it isn't a miracle then God didn't do it" -- is
> theologically unwise. { My gaps-theology has been influenced by Allan
> Harvey, who asks "What does 'God of the Gaps' mean?" and warns against
> believing "that 'natural' explanations exclude God,... [so] if God did not
> do some things...via direct action, he didn't do them at all" and "setting
> up a 'scoring system' in which any increase in scientific understanding
> counts as points against God." } An explicit statement of
only-in-the-gaps
> is rare, but it is implicit in a common argument and it can be implied by
a
> failure to clearly deny it. All theists should deny this implication by
> emphasizing -- in our doctrines and in our actual personal worldviews (the
> practical theology that we actually use for daily living) -- that God is
> active in the normal-appearing natural events of everyday life, not just
in
> occasional miracles, and that evidence for the operation of natural
process
> in formative history is not evidence against God's activity in this
history.
> What are the unjustified criticisms? First,... Second,..."
>
> Craig
>
>
Received on Sat Aug 20 19:56:51 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 20 2005 - 19:56:53 EDT