Science doesn’t make claims about God so it certainly doesn’t claim that anything is random from the perspective of God. Science is silent on this matter.
Theological, what we can random may not at all be random to God. At least it may be no more random than free will.
@gbrooks9 I think the way the wording could be improved is to state it similar to how I did. We don’t care if people personally agree evolution is guided or not. However, when they state their opposition we just want to clarify they are opposing it on personal, not Scientific grounds. As long as they are tolerant of other views I have no quarrel with them stating their won view.
Goin forward, you can even just quote @T_aquaticus and myself:
Quote that when ever you are frustrated by people declaring for unguided evolution, and you will do a lot of good, and encounter very little resistance from the atheists and agnostics here.
It carries a slightly different nuance because ‘random’ is freighted with so much baggage in colloquial use, to me. For example, if you described to a layman that an electron’s position can be distributed randomly around a nucleus, and then show them a picture of a pi orbital, they’re going to suggest that’s not what they initially envisioned by ‘random’ (Something like an s-orbital might match their expectations better). You and I know that a description of something being ‘random’ needs to include information about distribution. But to laymen, the first thing people think of is an equal distribution – all outcomes equally probable. “Stochastic” also tends to invoke a process in people’s minds. That’s why I like to use ‘stochastic’, particularly when discussing a process, like evolution. I wouldn’t characterize many of the mechanisms and processes in evolution as being ‘ergodic’. Makes sense for use in statistical thermo…
@gbrooks9 responds:
"This is a good benchmark sentence, @swamidass. If we can get @T_aquaticus to use it… the people he chats with will not only understand him better… but they will also know better that G.A. has the capacity to treat Randomness from a Theological perspective… rather than from a purely scientific one.
I’m inclined to see that as an unreasonable request.
Looking at it from my agnostic perspective, I do not have a problem with the view that god-guided is not in conflict with evolutionary science. But it would be inappropriate for me to argue that view. I can accept it, but because am not a theist, I cannot argue it. And I suspect that also would apply to @T_aquaticus.
I would agree with you except for one reason: i have seen @T_aquaticus do a splendid job at @BioLogos disputing with YECs on the Theist position from the view of BioLogos … which is hardly Atheist.
In the meantime, @nwrickert, maybe you’ve noticed that one of the biggest hindrances YECs have when they arrive here is the deeply held view that Evolution MUST be a random process.
Agnostics and Theists can choose to aggravate the situation by refusing to distinguish their personal views from Joshua’s views. But to do so is not quite Peaceful, and certainly more hostile than friendly.
Evolutionary science, as currently understood, is pretty good science. But it fails badly as a marketing campaign.
Um, as I explained to Greg many times in that thread, there are plenty of examples of God using the lottery in the Bible to accomplish theological purposes.
Crossed purposes from imprecise language here? God used lots in the Bible on the basis that “the lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.” In other words, human decisions were guided by epistemologically random outcomes that were, theologically speaking, ontologically determined.
As a concrete example, the apostles cast lots to determine a replacement for Judas, and thanked God for his choice of Matthias. It’s not stated why they did not simply make a choice between the two candidates, but the clear implication is that they wanted to enact God’s choice, not to (as in the case of tossing a coin to decide a football kickoff) give each candidate an equal chance.
So they used a process involving epistemological chance against the background of a belief system that God himself does not cast lots, but determines outcomes for his own good reasons.
One could argue that this was the ID version of Just or Righteous Promotion or Award:
The Gods controlled events thst were otherwise random to humans.
Well, it would certainly be absurd to interpret it as the disciples’ leaving it to God, who then said: “Not much to choose between these two - I’ll toss dice to decide.”
Why would that be absurd?
Because it would be deceptive (to echo another thread). Disciples admit to not being wise enough to decide, and God pretends he is, when he’s just casting lots himself.
Do you really think the Proverbs quote means “The lot is cast into the lap, but its decision is that of the Lord’s own coin toss.”?
Where does God do any pretending? When does God tell the disciples to cast lots? We only have an account of what the disciples were thinking, not what God was thinking. And we have plenty of reason to think the disciples didn’t always understand what was going on.
Well, it’s always possible to say that the disciples weren’t doing anything siginificant at all - they might have trusted an untrue proverb, and simply got a “natural” random result which they misinterpreted as God’s decision.
However, in that case there would be very little we could rely on in this passage, which is the sole description of the formation of the Church at Pentecost. And a pretty low view of the risen Christ’s ability to govern his own body, if I may say so.
But in fact, their lot-casting was accompanied by prayer saying (a) that they acknowledged God’s perfect knowledge of the two men’s hearts and (b) that they cast lots to discover which of the men the Lord had already chosen (Acts 1:24) in place of Judas, whom the Lord had previously chosen. To answer that prayer with a coin-toss would have been, as I said, absurd. And a faith-stopper.
But that’s exactly what I was getting at - epistemological chance, but ontological determinism.
Yes, that’s what I thought - Neil’s comment seemed to be more ambiguous.
I didn’t realize that by “absurd” you meant that the possibility was inconsistent with your understanding of how scripture (and God) work. I don’t find anything absurd about the possibility.
In any case, even given your assumptions one of your conclusions doesn’t follow: “And a pretty low view of the risen Christ’s ability to govern his own body, if I may say so.” If God did choose to let the lot fall in some way outside his control, that would imply nothing about his ability to do otherwise.
Is there something wrong with this statement?
“I see no conflict between the randomness described by science and the theological belief that God is involved in the process in some way, even though I lack a belief in God.”
I think @gbrooks9 just wants you to date that more so the Christians know you are making space for them. It is a good idea if the goal is peace. It should be necessary in a perfect world, but sometimes it seems like most people are suffering from PTSD.