Problems with this section (Agnosticism)

by David Turell , Sunday, October 25, 2009, 01:13 (5507 days ago) @ Frank Paris

First of all, let me tell you with whom I am most sympathatic:
> 1. David Ray Griffin (his theology only; his politics went over the edge of credibility, even though I think our ex-pres is an evil man).
> 2. John B. Cobb
> 3. Charles Hartshorne
> However, I'm not married to any of those views and have my own inspiration. But they "strike a chord" and have provided me with a useful vocabulary.
> 
> I've found problems in the essay on Agnosticism. On page 7 he says, "Science examines the physical world. Religious people believe in a non-physical world." Here he seems to be making a distinction that depends on a particular concept of the divine. In my religious process view, there is no distinction between a physical world and a non-physical world. The physical world "goes all the way down" to the divine, or the physical world arises out of the divine, is "made out of" the divine. Science examines what "oozes" out of the divine. It's all one continuous process.
> 
> Then there's this statement: "But atheists such as Dawkins are convinced that the world is exclusively physical." But so is this process theologian. There is no discontinuity between the divine and the fundamental particles that make up everything we call physical. Physicality goes all the way down to the divine. There is no discontinuity. At the same time we can say that all there is is the physical and all there is is the divine. This is akin to what the mystics have realized since time immemorial: All is One.
> 
> The above quotation goes on: "...scientists examine the physical world, and therefore scientists will one day discover the truth, and the truth is that there is nothing but the physical world. The perfect circle." True enough, but the physical world is "made out of" the divine. It is a perfect circle.
> 
> He quotes Dawkins: "An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is someone who believes there is nothing beyond the natural physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body, and no miracles." Amazing how close Dawkins' atheism is to process theology, yet process theology is anything but atheism. The process theologian can accept everything in that quotation, yet still find the divine in all of it.
> 
> Dawkins goes on to say that the atheist "acknowledges that there are things we do not understand, and expresses the hope that one day we will be able to prove that their source is physical." Doing so will not affect the process theologian's faith in the least. Once again, the protagonists on both sides assume a traditional Christian idea of the divine and get wrapped up in specious disagreements. Christians and atheists both argue from the same presuppositions, which have nothing to do with reality. For this reason, their arguments don't interest me.
> 
> Then the section on Evolution starts. But that's the subject for another post. I'll just say this: like Dawkins and every other person who truly understands how evolution works, I am opposed to "Intelligent Design" as the term in used in the literature and in politics. This is because that understanding of "Intelligent Design" implies self-conscious, divine intervention that contravenes the laws of nature: periodically working miracles to move things forward. In both my view and Dawkins, that's never necessary, and there is no compelling reason why things have to move forward. It just so happens that sometimes they do move forward, simply because there's room in eco-space for that to happen strictly by chance. So the natural laws are "smart enough" on their own. But on my view, the natural laws are grounded in the divine nature. Everything is "made out of" God-stuff, and so it is not theologically surprising that there is "room" in nature for wonderful creatures to arise, strictly by chance.