Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
See, this is interesting as it is similar to one of my more recent ideas about how to talk meaningfully about God. The simple expression of what you are describing is that "hindsight is 20-20," and this is only so because we build our experiences into a narrative with some sort of purpose. But from a clinical perspective, there is no such thing as "purpose", and this is what I believe is horribly troubling for ALL Christians in their approach to evolution, abiogenesis, and cosmology (this is regardless of whether one is a creationist or subscribes to some form of theistic evolution). A belief in God seems to presume that there is some sort of grand purpose or "meta-narrative" of which everything is a part. Yet the scientific dissection of the world according to empirical reason continues to chip away at any notion of purpose. At least purpose in a deterministic sense. Here is a snippet of something I wrote a few months ago on the subject. It begins with a scene from the film The Matrix Revolutions:
|
Exactly! So I don't look back on the string of consequences that lead me to be where I am right now and attribute it to anything more than choices combined with the random noise of events in life. And I agree, that is a troubling proposition for some Christians, though some try to rationalize it by talking about God's A plan, B plan, C plan for our lives, etc.. They recognize at some level that the meta-narrative and free will are mutually exclusive, so they invent doctrines to account for it. Except Calvinists, they don't have to resolve it.
When I started seeing this, I saw I didn't need to believe in the Great Plan, in fact I couldn't because the reality I observe contravenes it. Which changes the definition of God, which means I couldn't believe in the God I once did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Just to be clear, when I am speaking about glimpsing "God" in the synergism of random events, I am not speaking of "providence", which I would define as a deterministic sense of God who unfolds and oversees all of life and existence. No. I don't think that a providential God is particularly compelling (hence the problem with theodicy, once again). I think that "providential" belongs with those meaningless rubrics "omnipotent" and "omniscient". I think God may be part of life in a mysterious sense, but "living" through it just as we all are. There is no "plan" or "will" beyond what is beneficial for humankind (and at this point, I feel as though I've painted myself into a corner in recognizing that "beneficial" is a loaded term that remains open to interpretation. Nonetheless, I must be on my way to pick up my b'kor from school! I'll be back in an hour).
|
Fair enough, I misused the word providence. My intent was more to refer to those seemingly random events which in hindsight seem to lead somewhere. The difference between that and providence is simply one of degree, not nature. The same questions are raised in my mind, plus the additional ones of the apparent disparity of influence from person to person (which I recognize is holding something inscrutable up to a standard I am arbitrarily expecting).
(And I admit to having to Google b'kor)