[photon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

And this is precisely why I wanted to keep this example out of any discussion surrounding whether or not a belief in God produces "morality" or "kindness". I have no qualms at all with insisting that people are innately "good"—but also, paradoxically, innately "wicked"—but what intrigues me is the instinct itself and the timing in it all: Are you not ever awed by what an amazing stroke of coincidences your life experience amounts to?

For sure, it's crazy sometimes what happens and what leads to that event, but it's only amazing when viewing it in hindsight.

But that's just our perception. People are astounded when the 6/49 has the same series of digits 2 drawings in a row, or pulls numbers all right next to each other or something.. sure it looks amazing, but only because of our perceptions. In reality that sequence of numbers is no more or less likely than any other series. Our perception gives the coincidence meaning.

I can't honestly say that I've noticed anything unusual in the random events in my life that would lead me to believe in some kind of providence, and even if I did I know the human brain fallible enough that I'd question my perception of that providence; I'd need a lot stronger evidence for it.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

No question. This is a problem. But what I think it does say about God, if such a God exists is two things: first, we are probably wrong to think that God ever "intervenes". Second, I think that if there is a God, he is not "all-powerful" or "all-knowing", at least not in the sense that we would expect.

Agreed, I hate terms like omniscient and omnipotent, they have no meaning. In math once I divide by zero and get infinity, what I'm working on usually looses any meaning. I think language has the same problems, once we say omniscient or omnipotent, it's like throwing an infinity into my trig equations. It breaks, there's no meaning anymore.

But that's an interesting view of God, and one that's necessary I think if you follow the logic through. Even general theology sometimes recognizes the necessity this, saying "God is bound by his word and cannot act outside of it".

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I'll go back to Miller's statement about whether or not the "Divine author" can in fact "intervene in his world at any time". I am presently writing a dissertation which I intend to publish as a book after my graduation. It is my creation full of my ideas. I own it and I am free to do whatever I want with it. But does that really mean that I can "intervene at any time"? If I decided to insert on p. 37 the following sentance: "If you are reading this you are too close", or the following random sequence of letters: "ddcvbqipvbwovqsivb1wrcv1qpuivbquifv", this would be a mistake. Or consider this: If you ever choose to read my book, will you be capable of detecting where the "original" material exists? What parts have been supplemented? Expanded? Changed? If I am a good enough writer, you should not. Part of my work in dealing with ancient literature is detecting those places where authors and editors have in fact "intervened." I am presently working on six mss. from the Dead Sea Scrolls that all contain the same composition, and I have actually managed to locate three separate layers of tradition that have resulted from redaction, or "intervention." So, whether or not God does intervene or even can intervene is not the point. We probably would not nor could not recognize "divine intervention" even if it did take place. But the fact that there are promptings and "instincts" within us that move us inexplicably to act on behalf of humanity suggests that it is—as life is—so much more than merely the sum of its parts.

Interesting, I'd sure like to read it when it's done, though I expect it might be beyond me, sounds like it would need a lot of specialized knowledge.

I think if there was divine intervention, it should be detectable. Anything that alters our reality is by definition under the domain of science, and eventually should be detectable. Of course there's a difference between should be and being able to, but studies like the ones looking for effects of prayer and such should show results if even minor levels of that kind of intervention is going on.

Maybe we're not looking in the right places, or maybe (more likely to me anyway) that intervention just doesn't take place.

I think our instincts and such can be explained through evolution as well, as we can see similar things in other animals. I marvel at the complexity and power of our emotions and our virtues, and that they arose naturally is even more amazing to me.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

As it should be, and I completely understand why this will most frequently be the sticking point for those who cannot believe in God. It will (or at least it should!) remain an unresolvable tension for those of us who do believe.

Heh, and I blame my upbringing in the church for the very need to require a resolution for the question of theodicy. I fight against the whole revealed truth I'm by definition right all the time, despite being more scientifically minded than 95% of the people I ever encountered in church. So my lack of ability to abide an unresolved tension pushes me towards a lack of belief, while that lack of ability I think comes directly from my upbringing in the church!