Monthly Archives: June 2013
I came across this 1992 symposium when following up a conversation at BioLogos in which I mentioned David L Wilcox. I’ve written about Wilcox before as a like mind in having a high (Reformed) view of God’s providence in nature, linked to at least general support for evolutionary theory (he is, after all, a population geneticist). But apart from his paper here, the whole symposium has interesting things to read.
Given the posts and ensuing discussion here over the last week or two, I thought it might be useful to link directly to the teaching of Thomas Aquinas on providence, and the subject that springs directly from it in Aquinas’ thought, predestination.
Over on BioLogos I’ve been courting controversy again after Ted Davis posted another of his series on John Polkinghorne, in which the latter again promotes the free creation, kenotic God theology so prevalent in theistic evolution now. I critiqued it again, in the hope (after two years) of getting someone to justify it.
There’s a running joke in our house, that if I thank my wife for getting me dinner, she replies, “Don’t thank me – thank Tesco.” Sometimes it does indeed seem as if the supermarket chain is taking over the world – though America proved resistant to its might. Tesco not only has a lion’s share of the UK food market, but has exclusive contracts with many food producers, an ability to bleed trade away from every High Street trader to out-of-town stores, a massive vehicle fleet and the distinction of being the largest property company in Europe. But that’s what it takes, it seems, to be able to guarantee ones … Continue reading
Blogger “Bilbo” is a veteran of BioLogos, Uncommon Descent and other faith/science sites, as well as a subscriber here on the Hump. He has just posted a short piece on the Lord’s prayer, suggesting it is evidence that God’s will is not done here on earth. The timing and subject suggest he may possibly have picked up the idea from Peter Hickman’s “parting shot” comment to me here, to the same effect.
Here’s a lighter one. In an idle moment a year or so ago I was Googling books I remembered from my childhood. I searched for a science fiction novel I got out of Guildford Junior Library in about 1960, which, to be truthful, was a little above my reading comprehension at the time. I had a vague idea of seeing if I had progressed enough to understand it.
The nihilist title is not mine! Reluctantly I’ve made this reply to Seenoevo’s comment a new post, simply to manage the length and formatting better. It didn’t really merit more than an inline comment.
Ed Feser finishes his review of reviews of Thomas Nagel’s important book Mind and Cosmos here. I did my own non-review here. Feser deals there with reviews by two analytic philosphers and two Aristotelian-Thomists like himself. In assessing the former, by J P Moreland and Alvin Plantinga, although they are Christians, he brackets them with atheist Nagel in sharing a personalist view of divinity formed by Enlightenment philosophy.
I ended a recent post, which discussed the New Testament’s use of the word “foreknow”, with the question of what kind of view Paul is most likely to have had on the issue of free-will. After all, it’s one thing to see different ways in which a text might be interpreted, or has been interpreted in Christian history. But if, to give one important example, the Renaissance notion of libertarian free-will did not exist in the New Testament world, to interpret the word “freedom” that way would be anachronistic. So knowledge of Paul’s religious culture would be valuable. Providentially we have a relevant first century Judaean source in the historian Josephus, … Continue reading
A very quick postscript to the last post. The word study on “foreknow” to which I linked there has an appendix exploring an idea by Hugh Ross that 11-dimensional string theory might help to reconcile God’s pre-determination with man’s freedom. Now given the questionable status of string theory, I’m doubtful that such a theory is going to stand the test of theological time.