Sorry, but I don’t understand what “deeply engaged” and “using nature” mean here. Could you explain further?
I somehow expected that you would not be satisfied with that answer.
We look at an automobile or a clock, and we can see exactly how it works – because simple mechanism explains everything. “Deeply engaged” means somehow explaining all of the things that we cannot so easily see how they work.
Theists are “god of the gaps” thinkers, though they strenuously deny that. Any gap in their understanding of nature is implicitly taken as evidence of God’s engagement.
1 Like
I think that’s an unfair categorisation.
I think the main difference is in what is seen as fundamental (one existing without any beginning). Theists believe that the mind/being of God is fundamental and all things arise from God.
Non-theists lean on matter, chance and things are just the way they are for no particular reason view point… 
Of course you do. That’s an example of the “strenuously deny” that I expected.
Keep in mind that I was putting it in terms that would make sense to @John_Harshman
But it didn’t make any sense to him either …
He’s got a point there. I don’t think “God of the gaps” explains it either, as even the most well-understood phenomena are apparently being attributed to God’s actions. Not just adaptive evolution but random mutation. Wind. The sun shining. The placement of porta-potties. Everything.
3 Likes
While the sentence above may be true… it’s not a good summation of my position.
"Any gap in their understanding of nature is implicitly taken as evidence of God’s engagement by super-natural means… not simply God’s engagement.
Upon pondering @John_Harshman 's comment about Occasionalism, I now wonder if the best way to describe my position for the Ears that John has … is to agree (at least in principle) that I am an Occasionalist!
The very first sentence in the Wiki article goes like this:
" Occasionalism is a philosophical theory about causation which says that created substances cannot be efficient causes of events. Instead, all events are taken to be caused directly by God."
Not surprisingly, that first sentence is combining two different ideas into the school of thought:
Part 1: “… created substances cannot be efficient causes…”
I don’t give a hoot about this section… and my metaphysics do not depend on the truth of Part 1.
Part 2: “… all events are taken to be caused directly by God.”
This second part seems almost perfect… except for that word “directly”!
It is “common usage” in the English language that super-natural events by God (the “pooof!” factor), is signaled to the listener by the use of the phrase “caused directly”.
While natural events, even when God has arranged for them is somehow labeled as an “indirect” cause. While I have been known to use “directly” and “indirectly” in this way … I wonder if @John_Harshman would tolerate that kind of distinction well or not.
I still want to go back to the analogy that God and Evolution is like John at the breakfast table. He has two ways to eat breakfast: with his Left Hand, and with his Right hand! So if some Harshman family metaphysicist were to say that when John eats with his favored hand by “… allowing it to feed him on its own…”, that would be analogous to those who describe God’s stance with Evolution as God “allowing nature to evolve on its own”!
**One way or another, it’s ALL JOHN working at the breakfast table. And **
one way or another it’s all God working at creation (Left Hand = Super-Natural workings vs. Right Hand = Natural, Non-Miraculous Workings).
Please don’t. It makes no sense. How is evolution to be considered God’s hand? Are mutations, the environment, and so on a part of his body? Does he wiggle them to produce what we see? If so, that’s the sort of active causation you reject elsewhere. If that was an attempt to clarify, it’s an abject failure.
Fair enough.
It was not intended as a summary of your position. It was intended as a way of connecting to John’s way of thinking.
1 Like
Oh my gosh… your concrete mode of ideation must be notorious where you taught!
No… Evolution is not appended to the body of God like your hand is to you.
And… amazingly enough, Jesus is not a door! [See verse John 10:7]
Jhn 10:7
"Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. "
I will see if I can find an analogy or metaphor that even a Concrete-Minded fellow is comfortable with!
1 Like
Please stop insulting me. I’m trying to understand the nature of your analogy. I don’t. You can’t always blame other people for failure to understand what you say. You bear some responsibility for lack of clarity. It’s not that I don’t understand the concept of analogy in general; it’s that I don’t understand what this particular analogy is supposed to mean. Your constant condescension is not helping anything except perhaps for stroking your own ego.
1 Like
Ok, you lost me.
Are you saying that somewhere in the text you quoted above is an insult to you? My discussion about your hand vs God’s evolution? You can’t be serious.
You were calling me an idiot. You’re saying that wasn’t intentional?
I was not calling you an idiot. I was re-stating your obvious point:
You objected to me using an analogy that was insufficiently analogous. If anything, I believe you were calling ME an idiot… as though I didn’t know Evolution was not a hand.
So if my re-stating what you said was insulting to you, the WRITER… imagine my reaction when I saw your writing of it being APPLIED TO ME!
You are a piece of work, John
In fact, your most recent posts here are a great case study in how not to relate to people in a blog…
You know, shouting doesn’t make you more understandable. There’s no point to the ALL CAPS or the frequent bolding. I do not understand what your analogy was intended to convey. Rather than ridicule my attempts to get you to explain, you should just explain. Explain better.
2 Likes
I would agree with you that whether God caused evolution to work through natural or supernatural means, God would still be the cause (Thomas Aquinas said God is the cause of causes). However, I do feel that the distinction between how he does it is important as it speaks to who God is and how he governs his creation.
3 Likes
Now look what you just said here… this is the funniest un-happy conversation I’ve ever had on a discourse system.
You need a translator device … mine is broken.
I think (and @gbrooks9 can correct me if I’m wrong) that the analogy of you feeding yourself at breakfast is supposed to represent how God interacts with the process of evolution. In this case which hand you use to feed yourself represents whether God influences evolution through natural or supernatural means. His argument is that either way God is directing evolution, just as either way you are feeding yourself. Only the method (or hand) used is different.
1 Like
Agreed. So what would you recommend?
@Eddie and I frequently use the phrase “front-loading” to mean God arranging creation to accomplish various things… like the eventual creation of Earth.
This is a “front-loading” of natural (rather than super-natural) processes… but, in the timeline, I know I allow for super-natural, or miraculous, events produced by God.
To me, the breakfast analogy is God using Super-natural events and Natural events to guide Creation.
What would you add to that? Or would you use a different analogy?
Perfect. You get an A++, and qualify for extra credit if you want… 
1 Like