I took a crack at asking questions about God’s mode of action in the present and recent past in the context of Mike Trout with a tip of the cap to Jon Garvey. I don’t critique particular views here. It’s more of a thought exercise for myself. But I do wonder what the ID and OEC response to out being knit together in our mother’s wombs may look like? From what I can gather OECs think that God’s special creative acts are over after the 6th day and so the formation of Mike Trout from a common ancestor should look indistinguishable from an EC response, or even the deist.
2 Likes
I dont see how the first part of what i quote from you (the text before “and so”) is the explanation for the text we find after “and so”.
The linked article includes this:
"This is the sense that some Christians have that the world is designed. Nothing is left to chance and yet the vast majority of events appear to be chance. "
Does this and what @jongarvey thinks, look to the imperfection of nature? It sure sounds like it.
While i would say: the Creator Is the one that makes things look random, out of a craftsman’s desire to add flare and express His divine creativity manifest within all of the workings of nature.
2 Likes
In my experience, craftsmen seldom desire to make things look random. Explain.
Art often brings forward a paradox of chaos and order. Even Darwin realized this when he wrote at the end of Origin of the Species (first version):
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
It did not have to be this way, but it is.
1 Like
My point, and I do have one, is that we can’t attribute the appearance of randomness to some motivation on the part of a “craftsman”. That’s pure rationalization after the fact, making God fit the world we see.
It hard to imagine a coherent world without the appearance of randomness. So I am not sure your point.
I find it very easy to imagine such a world. Not sure how “coherent” is a relevant factor.
You write: “In my experience, craftsmen seldom desire to make things look random. Explain.”
Please ask @Jongarvey what he means. If you don’t understand his
discussion, then you won’t understand my response to his discussion.
Perhaps the treatment is too physical/materialistic.
If we look at the description of Adams creation, we see two aspects to God’s actions.
- The creation of his body.
- Endowment of life to make him a “living soul”. (Gen 2:7).
The “personhood” of a Man being as much the work of God as per the Bible as one’s physical body. The idea that everything about a person is determined by his/her genetic code/other definable biological factors is not proven. It’s almost Scientism. If Mike Trout had a twin, would he necessarily be as talented as Mike?
Further on, Paul makes the following comment on Acts 17: [ 28 ] For we live, move, and exist because of him, as some of your own poets have said: ‘…Since we are his children, too.’
Even if we assume that our physical bodies are created by purely “natural processes”… nature istelf is created and sustained by God. In science, we think of the natural world as being sustained by “natural laws”. Yet it’s not clear what the source of natural laws are. It’s almost certain that natural laws don’t have an ontological existence. Rather they seem to be emergent features of quantum interactions.And there seems to be a role for consciousness at the quantum level. There is no scientific evidence that rules out an active sustenance of the “laws of nature” by God’s actions. And science definitely does not say anything about Souls.
Pssing the question on to me is obliging to George, but since he finds it hard to understand me, and his replies often have little to do with what I’ve said, it’s hard to be sure what question I’m answering.
I agree with you that craftsmen seldom desire to make this look random. Indeed, if (as I contend) there is no such thing as ontological randomness I find it hard to understand what that would mean: why would God imitate something that doesn’t exist?
On the other hand, craftmen’s patterns may not be obvious to us - especially when the aim is functional more than aesthetic. If you don’t know what an electronic circuit is for, it looks an unplanned design. Intelligent contingent actions tend to display statistical patterns (for example, any text in a particular language), and the more unusual or individual the activity, the less likely that one will detect the pattern. Maybe that’s what George means?
4 Likes
@Ashwin_s, are you going full circle here?
You just re-stated the scientific position about why science doesnt engage in God talk…
…and yet you say that you dont have enough info to conclude the source of natural laws!
The Book of Job’s broad discussion of God’s connections to natural phenomena would seem conclusive to most any Christian (while insufficient to most any scientist).
@jongarvey and @John_Harshman,
Jon has written long and ardently on God being a virtual artist… while at the same time suggedting the artist is linited by the inadequate knowledge he has over his tools.
I responded by implying that this is more a human problem than a divine one. The “slipperiness” or “fuzziness” of reality is because God doesnt feel confined by the limits of his tools (i.e., God’s natural laws). These tools are perfect…
But if they do not produce exactly the same thing in the same way all the time, it would be because God is expressing his artistic freedom (as a Creator), rather than produce like some kind of divine robot.
Enter the scene by John… who says most handiman are not interested in showing off their skills.
@john_harshman, you have a choice: is God different from your exemplar of the unmotivated craftsman?
Or are God’s tools the difference between what Jon sees that you dont see in the work of craftsmen?
Latest Jesus and Mo
Never said anything of the sort. You frequently make up stuff and attribute it to me, and I wish you would stop.
How would you propose to resolve this epistemological dilemma when the Christian is a scientist too?
Read again. My point is totally different.
I paraphrased your words poorly… you didnt say craftsmen dont want to show off their work… you said they dont want their work to appear random.
George, it might please a number of us if you give up paraphrasing our words.
2 Likes
I dont think there is much in the way of an alternative.
If i cant reformulare your position, i havent learned your position well enough.