Re: [asa] David S Wilson

From: George Murphy <>
Date: Thu May 10 2007 - 12:39:06 EDT

The fact that there is no "need" for God to explain the vast majority of phenomena is used by some to challenge the existence, or at least the relevance, of God.
But it is indeed a fact & one that theology needs to take seriously. That's why I began my book The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross with the Laplace-Napoleon story (p.2) & why a theology of the cross, which recognizes "the worldly non-necessity of God" (Juengel) is an important component of science-theology dialogue. & it's also why ID's view, typified by Johnson's claim about God leaving his fingerprints all over the evidence, is so counter-productive.


----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: "George Murphy" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] David S Wilson

I was, of course, taking the speaker's intention in the broader sense of "there
is no need for God at all at any level." Which as you point out is an
unwarranted inference from what the speaker was limiting himself to. I was
defensively portraying a "warfare" mode reaction and assuming in the remark a
jab at religion that wouldn't necessarily have to be there. I do agree that
Deity doesn't need to be invoked for every explanation (which wouldn't then be a
scientific explanation). But given the warfare mode we are surrounded with,
this exchange does symbolize (for many) an attack on religion. And for those,
my challenge is that their box of scientific explanation is not the sum of all
existence. So in that sense, I would still defend my remark.


Quoting George Murphy <>:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Merv" <>
> To: "Alexanian, Moorad" <>; <>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 7:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] David S Wilson
> ......................
> > Here's another question --- we could have a contest: what would the
> > best comeback line be to the gentleman who told Napoleon, "Sir, I have
> > no need of that hypothesis." [referring to God] What about this:
> > "well, I do. And actually, you do too even if you haven't realized it
> > yet."
> ......................
> Emphatically no! Laplace (the gentleman in question) did not need the
> hypothesis of God in order to explain any of the details of celestial
> mechanics, which was the context in which Napoleon had asked (if the story
> is true) why he'd said nothing about God in his book. What Laplace's
> religious beliefs were isn't entirely clear, but within the limits of the
> question he was 100% right.
> Shalom
> George

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu May 10 12:39:29 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 10 2007 - 12:39:30 EDT