Problems with this section; for Frank (Agnosticism)

by Frank Paris , Friday, November 20, 2009, 02:16 (5481 days ago) @ David Turell

"I know full well what a process is."-But do you "get" that everything is process? That that's what modern science leads up to? That's where Whitehead's thought goes, and he follows it all out to its logical conclusions.-"And, as I understand it, our individual concepts are not that far apart."-But, as you shall see in my response to some of your specific beliefs listed below the above quote, I believe you open yourself up to serious criticism from scientifically literate agnostics and atheists. To avoid those criticisms myself, I make minimal assumptions about how all things got started, and shy away from anything that smacks of the miraculous. Theology does not have to assume that we live in a universe that requires the supernatural. That is process theology's major contribution to thought.-"I conceive of God as universal intelligence who thought up the universe"-I've had trouble with that view for 40 years. The main trouble I have with it is that if God knows what's in store for him, he'd be bored silly. What he wants the universe for is a laboratory that unfolds his own nature to himself, which is so full of wonder that it is surprising to God himself when it unfolds. The universe is thus an expression of God's essence, a way for God to look in the mirror and see his beauty and fullness, aspects that only gradually unfold over billions of our years.-The point of my theology is that God doesn't have to "figure anything out" beforehand to get things going in such a way that his essence is gradually revealed. He just dumps an infinite number of tiny reflections of himself out there and watches what unfolds as they come together and form brighter and brighter images of himself.-"I am conviced that the DNA, given by Him, is programmed to evolve life to us"-This is where you're going to get into trouble with scientifically literate people who have a deep understanding of evolution. They see that at the deepest levels evolution does not require any sort of preconceived design whatsoever, that the most fundamental laws of nature are absolutely sufficient to evolve life from bottom to top, and it probably doesn't even require DNA specifically to get to life.-If you require DNA to produce life, if your concept of God demands that, what would happen to your beliefs if science discovers life on another planet that has nothing to do with DNA, where genetic codes are constructed out of an entirely different chemistry? Why make an assumption that DNA is necessary for a genetic code? All you need to assume is that the fundamental laws of chemistry and physics have within them the power to evolve genetic codes whatever form they take. We have no right to assume that there is anything whatsoever that is magical about DNA. Frankly, that smells of superstition and nothing more.-"I think there is a joining with Him in an afterlife of thought"-Superficially, that's a pleasant thought, but I'm not sure it isn't beset with problems when you start analyzing it more closely. Where does it lead? Is there an evolution of thought in the afterlife, or do we suddenly know "everything"? Do you have any ideas of the afterlife that are more clearly spelled out than that simple sentence?-"He watches the process that is going on and may occasionally interfere."-This is where you're going to run into trouble with the scientifically literate, who see not a shred of evidence that the basic natural laws of the universe have ever been violated. This is why process theology from Whitehead to Hartshorne, to Cobb and Griffin and a host of others have developed the idea that God can only inject himself into the world as a moving force through conscious creatures, when God presents himself to consciousness and acts as a lure, drawing conscious individuals towards his will. But absolutely, no miracles ever occur that counteract the basic laws of nature, i.e. "interfering," to use your term. That's why God does not, can not, deliberately design DNA to produce life. He doesn't have to. That just happens naturally, not supernaturally.-"I think the odds of what we have discovered in life's processes are too complex to have been developed as a result of chance development."-And I think that anyone who truly understands the nature of evolution knows that only natural processes are required to produce life. Your belief as stated above will be regarded as blind faith and a confession that you don't truly understand how evolution works. I know evolutionists will believe this about you, because I've seen highly respected evolutionary scientists who absolutely believe in God totally rejecting the above assertion and claiming it can only be made by those ignorant of how evolution works. And here is a name for you of a theistic evolutionary scientist who takes this exact position: Donald R. Prothero. Look him up. Take a gander at his book, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters. Just read pp. 351-359.