How helpful do you find the computer analogy to explain the immanent working of God in creation and the world as we experience it? Please comment on the statement that evolution is more aligned with Christian thinking regarding an immanent God than ‘special creation’ accompanied by long phases of ‘natural’ as opposed to supernatural development?
Immanence is absolutely my picture of God in the world. Recall the wonderful comment of the late Victorian Oxford theologian, Aubrey Moore, that occasional intervention implies ordinary absence.
In contrast transcendence is my picture of God. In Gen 1 there is a dual focus of the de-divinisation of nature and the transcendalisation of the Divine - both with polemical intent towards the Imperial theology of Babylon - which makes this passage "protest" theology. It also makes this pericope of scripture useful for contemporary theological purposes as such a worldview creates space for the advent of science. It is therefore no accident that modern science had its development in a culture shaped by the Judeo-Christian heritage as pagan mythologies with nature infested with divine presence did not allow for the world to be viewed objectively and autonomously.
Secondly, I believe that the transcendence of God re Evolution better fits the purposes of theodicy over and against immanence (although there are no easy nor from my perspective completely satisfactory answers in either regard)
You once said in personal correspondence that it would only take a light lunch to convince me otherwise. We never did get round to that but I think it might take a five course meal and even then we might not have resolved the issue! Who is paying by the way!!!
This debate may have to wait until later as you have an on-going discussion with another correspondent which i look forward to reading.
A fascinating rejoinder, Russell. Did I ever say that only a light lunch would be necessary for us to reach agreement? It's obviously judicious that I've forgotten ever saying anything so rash!
You're right that I'm in the throws of correspondence over other aspects of the thread so far. To be exact, I worked up a Full Reply on recent developments in evolutionary theory using Word, and attempted tonight to transfer it to this system. But I was rejected, probably because my reply was too full! I've sent it to Lynsey, at GTN, and asked if she can help. Tomorrow will reveal what she comes up with.
Maybe, after a solution has (hopefully) been found, i may be able to say something intelligent about the ideas you've just posted. But I have to say I'm not sure I'll manage, because I now see that you're coming from a very different thought-world. Certainly, I'll need to put in some serious cogitation, and probably also some prayer and fasting.
Neil
I don't think we are coming from a "very different thought-world". I thought your paper was excellent and have thoroughly enjoyed all the articles I have read by you. I love the title of your paper "Taking Darwin Seriously" and I am appalled when I hear theologians give lectures and talks on issues such as Creation/redemption/providence/suffering/ and the problem of evil without mentioning "evolution" or Darwin even once! Duh!
I think our difference is only in our response to this challenge and mine has been forged in the furnace of struggle and doubt alongside an attempt to interpret the scriptures for today. But I am open to challenge. In the words of the late Historian A.J.P.Taylor "I hold extreme views very weekly!"
Furthermore if we have a good bottle or Red with our "lunch" I'm sure we'll reach an Hegelian Synthesis very quickly!
Dear Russell,
I mustn't keep you longer, though my attempt at a full reply to John still hangs somewhere in the system, having proved too long for a rule which, as far as I'm aware, had never been announced.
You and I certainly aren't coming from different thought-worlds as regards evolutionary biology. But even after a week's thought I'm daunted by the scholarly and biblically-informed reasons you adduce for your picture of God as essentially transcendent. If one takes Gen. 1 as one's guide, I can readily see that transcendence must be the picture one forms of God's relationship to the created world. I'd simply never thought of building my attempt at a 21st C theology on this lovely myth, constructed, as I understand it, to reassure the captive people in Babylon that their God was still present to them in that foreign country.
By contrast, my foundation has been the direct responses of 19th C divines, notably Kingsley and Moore, to Darwin's account of the world. I quoted Moore last time. Kingsley felt that we had to choose "between the absolute empire of accident a living, immanent, ever-working God". On such a view, every thing, every process, is divine. Whereas, on my understanding, a transcendent God has to intervene at specific times, and the rest of the time is absent. But I guess you'll quickly show me that, in thinking this, I've got my theology terribly wrong.
Regarding the last sentence of your last post I will not be seeking to correct you in any way - I have enough problems keeping myself on the straight and narrow path whatever that is!
In relation to this subject we are both "amphibians" we inhabit two worlds at the same time (science and faith). The vexed and continuing problem is how we bring those worlds together. We are engaged in a three-way dialectic here between the details of evolution/the scriptures of our religious tradition/and philosophical and theological issues. To rephrase a famous statement by Tony Blair this is about "Interpretation, Interpretation, Interpretation!" Should be easy then!!!!!
We really must have that meal sometime as there are a thousand and one things I want to say but its hard going communicating through posts such as this. Or better still maybe Grasping the Nettle will organise a forum where we can explore these subjects face to face. Therefore I'll be brief.
Where does evolution stop! The late Stephen J Gould liked to talk about a "picket fence" that gets erected around humanity to protect us from the implications of our evolutionary origins. Likewise David Sloan Wilson talks of an "off-limits" defensive mentality to evolution exhibited by scholars in the Humanities. If evolution has taken place then everything is influenced by that including human culture which includes of course religion. Once you start to view things from a Darwinian perspective it is very hard to stop. I can easily see the Bible as a story of "descent with modification" and likewise the history and development of Christian theology. I think we are called to re-discover, re-inhabit, and re-imagine the Biblical materials for today. That is what I have tried to do over 20yrs with the creation theology of the Hebrew Bible hence my reference to Gen 1. I believe it is far more than a "lovely myth" but to explain why would require another post.
Unfortunately we primates despite being clever have minds that are limited in all sorts of ways. Maybe that is why we generally are faced with either two or three alternatives to most questions and problems. Our conception of God for example can be seen in terms of the Transcendent, Immanent or a mixture of both. The classic Christian tradition is a form of theism that expresses the latter. How this relates to the messy details of evolutionary development is an open question and different perspectives will be held within the Faith about this. Kingsley and Moore don't strike a cord with me at all but then that needs further exploration. I'll stop there!
