Thomas Jay Oord - Random Events in a God-Created World

Random Events in a God-Created World

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/random_events_in_a_god-created_world/#.U1EWvfldX9y

by Thomas Jay Oord

April 16, 2014

We live in a world characterized by a degree of randomness. Scientists speculate that randomness occurs at the quantum, genetic, and environmental levels of existence. But I’ve been wondering lately, What does this mean for theology?

SCIENCE

If contemporary science is to be believed, randomness seems at play, at least to some degree, from the bottom to the top of existence. Not only is the quantum level and simple organisms affected by randomness. Complex creatures like humans live lives characterized by at least some measure of randomness.

On its own, of course, science cannot judge whether chance is merely a matter of our lack of knowledge or actually real. Scientists rely upon philosophical assumptions.

But a good number of contemporary philosophers also argue that chance occurs in our lives. These philosophers explore the issues of chance in relation to probability theory and induction.

CS PEIRCE

A century ago, C. S. Peirce proved one of the most insightful among philosophers when it comes to explaining the role of chance. The advantage Peirce had for thinking carefully about chance was that his job required him to make careful measurements. Although a world-class philosopher, he worked for the government as a type of technician. His assignment was to measure things and to improve measuring devices. In this capacity – especially as Peirce found errors in observation – he realized the pervasiveness of chance.

Peirce’s inability to measure reality with absolute precision led him to conclude that a measure of spontaneity exists in the world. The world is not a determined machine, and chance emerging from spontaneity is inevitable. In fact, chance is irreducible, because randomness is a fundamental fact of life. Chance is genuine.

Peirce’s conclusions about the role of randomness rings true today. A number of philosophers accept that chance, randomness, unpredictability, and imprecision characterize existence, although specialists debate how best to speak of each. In this debate, philosophers sometimes use “random” to describe the product of a series of events and “chance” to describe the process of a single instance. There is no consensus on how best to conceptualize them in relation to each other. But the consensus among contemporary philosophers seems to be that randomness and chance is real.

THEOLOGY

Contemporary views about chance are at odds with the theological perspectives of Augustine and John Calvin.

“Nothing in our lives happens haphazardly,” said Augustine. “Everything that takes place against our will can only come from God's will, his Providence, the order he has created, the permission he gives, and the laws he has established."

John Calvin argues the same: “We must know that God’s providence, as it is taught in scripture, is opposed to fortune and fortuitous happenings.” [fate v.destiny]

Even one of my theological heroes, John Wesley, approved of cleromancy, which is the practice of casting lots (chance) to find God's will. Apparently, Wesley thought that chance events were determined by God in a hidden way.

I believe we cannot make significant progress in understanding our world if we ignore the role of genuine randomness. Theologies in conversation with science, philosophy, and other disciplines that accept randomness and chance must propose different ways for understanding how God acts providentially.

OPEN AND RELATIONAL THEOLOGIES

For my own part, I think open and relational theologies offer the best theological vision for affirming God’s providence and a world characterized by randomness. Open and relational theologies do not see God controlling all things. Out of love, God gives freedom and agency to creation. And this means random events can and do occur, events that even God may not have known with certainty. [sic, goes to the nature of the event: "open" and "relational"]

I’m currently about half done writing a book on this subject. I’d love to have feedback that may help. If you have questions or issues that you think I should address, please contact me.

- TJO

* * * * * * * * * * * *

* For further discussion see sidebars re "Theism - Open" and here under "Theism - Relational" along with additional discussions under God's Sovereignty.

** A recent discussion on these matters may be found here - Why a Christian Evolutionist Cannot be a Naturalist (or, the False Divide between Science and Religion)

- R.E. Slater

David Foster Wallace, "The Key To Living A Compassionate Life"

"This Is Water," by David Foster Wallace (Full Speech)

David Foster Wallace, "The Key To Living A Compassionate Life"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/16/david-foster-wallace-keny_n_5148773.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000051&ir=Religion

The Huffington Post | by Carolyn Gregoire

Posted: 04/16/2014 12:05 pm EDT Updated: 04/16/2014 1:59 pm EDT

David Foster Wallace, widely considered one of the most brilliant writers of his generation, wrote prolifically about an incredibly wide spectrum of human experience. In novels, stories, essays, and magazine articles, he won legions of fans, established deep connections with readers and established a reputation as a towering intellect. But it was in his commencement address to Kenyon College's graduating class of 2005 that Wallace spoke with unprecedented directness, telling graduates in how to live in the "day to day trenches of adult life" with awareness and compassion.

The deeply moving and wryly humorous address -- later published in book form with the title This Is Water: Some Thoughts, Delivered On A Significant Occasion, On Living A Compassionate Life -- quickly took its place among the most famous commencement addresses in recent history. And in the wake of Wallace's tragic death in 2008, the speech took on a new level of significance to his admirers.

"It captures his electric mind, and also his humility -- the way he elevated and made meaningful, beautiful, many of the lonely thoughts that rattle around in our heads,"as The Economist's magazine More Intelligent Life put it. "The way he put better thoughts in our heads, too."

Here are five universally applicable lessons from Wallace's now-iconic 2005 address:

1 - Ruthlessly question your own beliefs and assumptions.

Wallace is quick to dismantle our preconceived notions about the liberal arts cliche that education "teaches you how to think," and makes it the goal of his discussion to illuminate what this platitude really means. And it's not just about critical thinking or the ability to analyze or argue well.

An important part of truly learning how to think, he says, is becoming "just a little less arrogant" -- having some awareness of how little we actually know, and behaving accordingly.

"To have just a little critical awareness about myself and my certainties," Wallace explains. "Because a huge percentage of the stuff that I tend to be automatically certain of is, it turns out, totally wrong and deluded. I have learned this the hard way, as I predict you graduates will, too."

Educating ourselves is a lifelong process of stripping away our deeply-held convictions and assumptions in order to transcend our own limited viewpoints and, as a result, allow ourselves to think more openly and broadly. For Wallace, this is a way to escape the confines of our own minds.

2 - Growing is a movement from narcissism to connection.

We live and think from a completely self-centered place, says Wallace -- and of course, it's natural to perceive all things relative to ourselves. This is the way we automatically engage with the world -- self-centeredness is our "default setting."

"Everything in my own immediate experience supports my deep belief that I am the absolute centre of the universe; the realest, most vivid and important person in existence," explains Wallace.

But this self-centered mindset can keep us from engaging with the world with awareness and compassion. Our work as people who are learning to think, says Wallace, is to choose in each day and moment (for instance, when we're sitting in traffic or waiting in line at the supermarket, annoyed and impatient at anyone who might be slowing us down) to move beyond our own self-centered frame of mind.

"It's a matter of my choosing to do the work of somehow altering or getting free of my natural, hard-wired default setting which is to be deeply and literally self-centered and to see and interpret everything through this lens of self," says Wallace.

3 - Stay present and open.

Wallace's address touched upon an ancient truth: The mind is naturally unruly, and if we are to live with a sense of freedom and peacefulness, we must take some measures to gain control over it. Wallace quotes the old cliche, "The mind is an excellent servant but a terrible master."

"It is extremely difficult to stay alert and attentive," says Wallace, "instead of getting hypnotized by the constant monologue inside your own head."

But learning to stay alert and attentive are central to learning how to think. If we can learn to exercise some control over how and what we think, we'll become increasingly able to choose what we pay attention to and how we construct meaning from our experiences.

Wallace jokes that if you're unable to exercise this choice as an adult, you'll be "totally hosed":

"This is what the real, no bullshit value of your liberal arts education is supposed to be about: how to keep from going through your comfortable, prosperous, respectable adult life dead, unconscious, a slave to your head and to your natural default setting of being uniquely, completely, imperially alone day in and day out," says Wallace.

Through the "day in and day out" of adult life, Wallace says, we must choose how we react to countless small annoyances, boredoms, frustrations and injustices. When something doesn't go our way (even if it's simply getting stuck in traffic), we make the situation about ourselves -- what we want and how unfair it is that we're not getting it.

"That petty, frustrating crap like this is exactly where the work of choosing is gonna come in," says Wallace. "Because the traffic jams and crowded aisles and long checkout lines give me time to think, and if I don't make a conscious decision about how to think and what to pay attention to, I'm gonna be pissed and miserable every time I have to shop.

4 - Create your own meaning.

Learning how to think leads to the freedom to consciously impose meaning on your own experience.

"You get to consciously decide what has meaning and what doesn't," says Wallace. "You get to decide what to worship."

In some of the speech's most memorable words, he explains:

"In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship -- be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles -- is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It's the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you."

5 - Above all, be good to others.

We educate ourselves and learn to control the mind for one important end: To be less self centered and more connected to others; to choose compassion in as many moments as we can.

"The really important kind of freedom," says Wallace, "involves attention and awareness and discipline, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them over and over in myriad petty, unsexy ways every day."

A Gift Of Charity Began It All

"One Time A Guy Gave A Homeless Man A Computer,

And The Recipient Did Exactly

What The Giver Expected"

Computer programmer teaches homeless to code

 Laura Willard

If I'd have heard about what this guy was planning to do before it all played out, I might have thought he was unrealistic or maybe even condescending. But after watching the video, I realized that there's a much bigger thing at play here: We need to remember that every human being is unique and full of potential. We don't know other people's stories.

From the Onion - God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule

God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule
http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-angrily-clarifies-dont-kill-rule,222/

NEWS • God • ISSUE 37•34 • Sep 26, 2001

[Adapted - R.E. Slater]

NEW YORK—Responding to recent events on Earth, God, the omniscient creator-deity worshipped by billions of followers of various faiths for more than 6,000 years, angrily clarified His longtime stance against humans killing each other Monday.

"Look, I don't know, maybe I haven't made myself completely clear, so for the record, here it is again," said the Lord, His divine face betraying visible emotion during a press conference near [one of the war zones in Iraq]  the site of the fallen Twin Towers. "Somehow, people keep coming up with the idea that I want them to kill their neighbor. Well, I don't. And to be honest, I'm really getting sick and tired of it. Get it straight. Not only do I not want anybody to kill anyone, but I specifically commanded you not to, in really simple terms that anybody ought to be able to understand."

Worshipped by Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike, God said His name has been invoked countless times over the centuries as a reason to kill in what He called "an unending cycle of violence."

"I don't care how holy somebody claims to be," God said. "If a person tells you it's My will that they kill someone, they're wrong. Got it? I don't care what religion you are, or who you think your enemy is, here it is one more time: No killing, in My name or anyone else's, ever again."

The press conference came as a surprise to humankind, as God rarely intervenes in earthly affairs. As a matter of longstanding policy, He has traditionally left the task of interpreting His message and divine will to clerics, rabbis, priests, imams, and Biblical scholars.

Theologians and laymen alike have been given the task of pondering His ineffable mysteries, deciding for themselves what to do as a matter of faith. His decision to manifest on the material plane was motivated by the deep sense of shock, outrage, and sorrow He felt over the Sept. 11 [and the subsequent] violence [years afterwards] carried out in His name, and over its dire potential ramifications around the globe.

"I tried to put it in the simplest possible terms for you people, so you'd get it straight, because I thought it was pretty important," said God, called Yahweh and Allah respectively in the Judaic and Muslim traditions. "I guess I figured I'd left no real room for confusion after putting it in a four-word sentence with one-syllable words, on the tablets I gave to Moses. How much more clear can I get?"

"But somehow, it all gets twisted around and, [the] next thing you know, somebody's spouting off some nonsense about, 'God says I have to kill this guy, God wants me to kill that guy, it's God's will,'" God continued. "It's not God's will, all right? News flash: 'God's will' equals 'Don't murder people.'"

Worse yet, many of the worst violators claim that their actions are justified by passages in the Bible, Torah, and Qur'an.

"To be honest, there's some contradictory stuff in there, okay?" God said. "So I can see how it could be pretty misleading. I admit it—My bad. I did My best to inspire them, but a lot of imperfect human agents have misinterpreted My message over the millennia. Frankly, much of the material that got in there is dogmatic, doctrinal bullshit. I turn My head for a second and, suddenly, all this stuff about homosexuality gets into Leviticus, and everybody thinks it's God's will to kill gays. It absolutely drives Me up the wall."

God praised the overwhelming majority of His Muslim followers as "wonderful, pious people," calling the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks rare exceptions.

"This whole medieval concept of the jihad, or holy war, had all but vanished from the Muslim world in, like, the 10th century, and with good reason," God said. "There's no such thing as a holy war, only unholy ones. The vast majority of Muslims in this world reject the murderous actions of these radical extremists, just like the vast majority of Christians in America are pissed off over those two bigots on The 700 Club."

Continued God, "Read the book: 'Allah is kind, Allah is beautiful, Allah is merciful.' It goes on and on that way, page after page. But, no, some assholes have to come along and revive this stupid holy-war crap just to further their own hateful agenda. So now, everybody thinks Muslims are all murderous barbarians. Thanks, Taliban: 1,000 years of pan-Islamic cultural progress down the drain."

God stressed that His remarks were not directed exclusively at Islamic extremists, but rather at anyone whose ideological zealotry overrides his or her ability to comprehend the core message of all world religions.

"I don't care what faith you are, everybody's been making this same mistake since the dawn of time," God said. "The Muslims massacre the Hindus, the Hindus massacre the Muslims... the [poor] Buddhists, everybody massacres the Buddhists. The Jews - don't even get me started on the hardline, right-wing, Meir Kahane-loving Israeli nationalists, man. And the Christians? You people believe in a Messiah who says, 'Turn the other cheek,' but you've been killing everybody you can get your hands on since the Crusades."

Growing increasingly wrathful, God continued: "Can't you people see? What are you, morons? There are a ton of different religious traditions out there, and different cultures worship Me in different ways. But the basic message is always the same: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Shintoism... every religious belief system under the sun, they all say you're supposed to love your neighbors, folks! It's not that hard a concept to grasp."

"Why would you think I'd want anything else? Humans don't need religion or God as an excuse to kill each other—you've been doing that without any help from Me since you were freaking apes!" God said. "The whole point of believing in God is to have a higher standard of behavior. How obvious can you get?"

"I'm talking to all of you, here!" continued God, His voice rising to a shout. "Do you hear Me? I don't want you to kill anybody. I'm against it, across the board. How many times do I have to say it? Don't kill each other anymore—ever! I'm fucking serious!"

Upon completing His outburst, God fell silent, standing quietly at the podium for several moments. Then, witnesses reported, God's shoulders began to shake, and He wept.


John 3:16
English Standard Version (ESV)

For God So Loved the World

16 “For God so loved the world,[a] that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes
in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Footnotes:
John 3:16 Or For this is how God loved the world

Beloved, let us love one another,

for love is from God

and whoever loves

has been born of God

and knows God.

- 1 John 4.7 (ESV, cf. 1 John 4.13-21)

1 John 4:7-21

English Standard Version (ESV)

God Is Love

7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

13 By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17 By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.19 We love because he first loved us. 20 If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot[a] love God whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.

Footnotes:

1 John 4:20 Some manuscripts how can he

Down with Muslim Stereotypes & Up with a New World Vision

Pharrell - Happy British Muslims! #HAPPYDAY

These 'Happy British Muslims' Rock Out To Pharrell Williams...

And It Is Beyond Amazing (video)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/16/happy-british-muslims-pharrell-_n_5159645.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000051

The Huffington Post | by Yasmine Hafiz

Posted: 04/16/2014 10:54 am EDT Updated: 04/16/2014 12:59 pm EDT

These British Muslims have something they want you to know... they're HAPPY!

In this adorable video set to Pharrell Williams' feel-good hit "Happy," a diverse array of British Muslims bop along to the catchy tune as they go about their daily lives.

The video was created by The Honesty Policy, a group of anonymous Muslims who believe that the community needs a space to express itself without shame or judgement. They describe themselves as "A group of young and curious Muslims saying what you’re thinking. Honestly."

They created the "Happy" video because:

We Brits have a bad rep for being a bit stiff, but this video proves otherwise. We are HAPPY. We are eclectic. We are cosmopolitan. Diverse. Creative. Fun. Outgoing. And everything you can think of.

This video is to show the world despite the negative press, stereotypes and discrimination we are burdened with we should respond with smiles and joy, not anger.

People are mainly responding with happiness, though as always, there are the occasional haters. Before comments were disabled on the video, YouTube commenter Marwan Benhafsia wrote, "Beautiful happiness.. Beautiful job.. I am happy for you guys.. u make me feel proud! We're Muslims and we love life and we dance and we sing! Keep going.."

Happy British Muslims, keep doing your thing!

Why a Christian Evolutionist Cannot be a Naturalist (or, the False Divide between Science and Religion)

Why not "Science AND Religion"?

Introductory Observations

by R.E. Slater

Part I - Naturalism

Even as naturalists will argue for pure science without any attempt to inject their philosophical preferences, so too will Christian scientists argue for the same without allowing Christian beliefs to interfere with scientific research and discovery.

As such, the Theory of Evolution can be admitted by both sides - both by the scientific naturalist as well as by the Christian theist (e.g., God-believer). Even so, the pure naturalist will not attest to a Creator-God, nor His presence, nor sustaining power to a purposeful creation. This is a philosophical belief. In contrast, the scientific theist will disagree with these agnostic/atheistic beliefs or conjectures and strongly admit to those theistic beliefs.

Supposedly, it is this very argument that provides the opposing philosophical framework between the false divide between science and religion. The naturalist will claim that religious belief will influence findings. But the religious scientist will say, "Not so! That religion can - and must - work from scientific neutrality."

Realistically, both positions can influence scientific research and discovery even though both positions would strive for neutrality of personal philosophical beliefs. That the naturalist would strive to ignore his or her's position of agnosticism or atheism even as the Christian scientist must fight the urge to do theology in scientific work.

And yet, it is at this very point of divide between science and religion that the Christian theist finds nature to be the most meaningful, purposeful, and pregnant with destiny, when understanding creation from a God-ward aspect. Even as the pure naturalist would claim that it isn't. That creation is all random chance and disorder.

But again, the observant theist will point out that even in an open system of random chance and disorder God is present as its Maker, Sustainer, and fulfilling destiny. That even in a system such as this it is God Himself who created it by primal decree. Thus, the philosophical argument between the two sides - one doesn't see God in the details while the other does. One disbelieves that a chaotic creation is God-ordained while the other can accept the same.

However, as good and impartial scientists, both the Christian or the naturalist scientist seek to remove their philosophical differences so as to avoid affecting their work as a neutral scientists. Anthropologically this is highly doubtful and it would be better to admit one's philosophical preferences so as to be truer to one's research as a scientist. Humans are not robots. They are not automatons. They come with feelings, pains, beliefs, and subjectivity. This is the nature of being human.

As such, though the ideal meeting point of science is to allow research on its own grounds by means of the scientific method, as human beings this task will always carry the philosophical shadings and preferences of the researcher. Thus the need for dialogue and collaboration without creating the artificial divide between science and religion because all science carries with it its own belief systems - even that of the agnostic and atheist.

Part II - Theism

The other false assumption is that true science is without its integration with true religion. That they each oppose the other. This is a naturalist's prejudice which has become the grounds of argument by popular agnostics and atheists. As example, the agnostic/atheist would claim that a Christian evolutionist cannot admit to the mechanistic - or quantum machinery - of evolution without necessitating interventionist, supernatural miracle(s) into the system of creation. Mechanism is the older classical argument (think, Isaac Newton) that in recent years has been replace by the quantum argument of random chance and disorder (think, Stephen Hawking).

However, both systems are more deterministic than they are indeterministic. In classical mechanics the initial conditions of velocity and mass determines all, while in quantum mechanics the same can be true. That even within the observed disorder of the quantum world if we knew enough about the moving objects then we can project with accuracy specific results using propagation and uncertainty principles.

But for the theist, s/he sees that same world of chance and disorder and admits to the indeterminate nature of the natural world. That behind its existence rules the God of its existence over all its uncertainty and improbabilities. That we do not live in a deterministic world but one that is full of possibilities despite our sophisticated projections and ignorance.

That it is not necessary to claim the need for divine miracle (or supernatural intervention) into the indeterminate "machinery" of creation by a God who dwells outside of its existence. Who must interrupt its workings to impose His will upon it. But that the idea of "miracle" or "sovereignty" is already built into the machinery of quantum physics and evolution. That tells of a Creator who dwells more within His creation - or alongside His creation - than of a God who exists outside His creation and from time-to-time must go within it to "fix" things.

That tells of a creation that is at all times miraculously woven-and-framed through God's originating decrees of chaos and disorder. That it is these very decrees that describe what modern science calls "the evolutionary theory of life." That the very nature of evolution itself is from the very hand of God who bespeaks "life from nothingness" so that it may at all times live in some way or fashion. That within the very fabric of evolutionary theory the teleology found within evolution is driven forward by the dynamic decrees of the God who creates. This is what is meant by "Christian evolution" and why it differs so dramatically from the naturalistic expression of a "scientific evolution" that the church seems to react so strongly against. A reaction that naively disclaims all forms of evolution in favor of its own "special creation" theories that are scientifically implausible and improbable based upon scientific discoveries of evolutionary life in our universe.

Hence, the very process of indeterminate evolution itself is how God chose to create by decree. That His fingerprints are everywhere about and nowhere seen except by the believing heart. That evolutionary creation was ever-and-always a supernaturally mediated process without necessitating any form of immediate intervention or natural disruption by "special creation". It is simply how God made the universe with all its disturbances, irregularities, uncertainties, randomness, and disruptions... and this despite the cries of both the disbelieving naturalist or argumentative church.

Part III - Evolutionary Creationism

This latter descriptor of an "evolutionary creation" would then separate the Christian evolutionist from the Christian creationist who would argue for a creational process of supernatural intervention and disruption. This is generally known as biblical creationism (or, the young-earth Christian YEC position). That Adam and Eve were immediately created and not purposely planned through the God-ordained process of evolutionary creation. Though both positions are theistic, each differ as to type or kind of creational process that God implemented. That one is anti-evolutionary while the other is evolutionary. One is interventionist while the other is non-interventionist. One is immediate in process whereas the other is mediated by process. That one claims direct supernatural intervention by miracle (sic, "how many movies do we see of Adam rising from the dirt and dusty clays of the earth??") whereas the other is indirect and full of supernatural miracle within its system of theistic evolution.

Hence, for the Christian evolutionist (otherwise described as an evolutionary creationist) there is the dual dilemma of finding common ground with the agnostic/atheistic naturalist even as there is the additional burden of finding common ground with the theistic non-evolutionist. The first deals with the philosophical/theological belief of whether there is a God or not. While the other wrestles with the kind of creation that this God has ordained, does now rule, has-and-is ordering, superintends, and maintains, in His sovereignty.

Moreover, to this latter discussion come the difference in idea to the kind of divine sovereignty God shows to us. Whether it is one of meticulous sovereignty requiring absolute control over fair-and-foul, giving to us the old problems of theodicy (the source of evil and sin, and the kind of election God that rules with per the doctrinal system of Calvinism). Or whether divine creation is laced with free will ordination throughout its being by holy decree (per the doctrinal system of Arminianism). And it is this latter doctrine of arminianism that for the evolutionary creationist determines all. Why?

Because a free will creation (more accurately described as an indeterminate creation as representing non-sentient objects that cannot exhibit an animal's or human beings "free will") does not require a mechanistic, determinative creation meticulously controlled by a Creator God (as errantly presumed by Newton and Hawking in their respective outlooks). But one, like the creature or man himself, that exists as an indeterminate creation without disallowance to the broader doctrines of divine sovereignty.

That God is not a controlling God but a permitting God by primal decree on the eve of creation's dawn. A dawn that forthwith included indeterminacy of free will. And that the process of evolution is God's ultimate idea (or vision) of that primal decree where random chance and disorder must occur as the very mechanism of His (evolutionary) creation. But that within that indeterminacy God does somehow miraculously rule sovereignly over all His creation without interposing Calvinism's stricter, microcasmic degrees of Christian determinism. This is the mystery of sovereignty. A mystery that we would try to describe when there are no words to describe it except that it just is as decreed. Where a postmodern, more continental or existential approach, would better suit its framework than the Christianized materialism of Western civilization.

And it is this kind of "special" creation and divine rule that gives to creation its hope and promise. Its destiny and purpose. Its very openness to the future. One that is sublimely burdened with the crux of divine responsibility interposed to free willed beings surviving within an indeterminate universe who would enact and submit to the divine rule of God's (gracious and holy) permitting will. That "all be done on earth as it is in heaven". Even unto this very day. Amen.

R.E. Slater

April 16, 2014

further discussion re God's Sovereignty (Providence)

v. Randomness (Chance) may be found here -

Thomas Jay Oord - Random Events in A God-Created World

* * * * * * * * * * *

Debra Haarsma from Biologos @ GVSU Forum Discussion on Evolution, April 2014 [GVL/Marissa Dillon]

Grand Dialogue discusses science and religion

http://www.lanthorn.com/article/2014/04/grand-dialogue-discusses-science-and-religion

by Erin Grogan

April 13, 2014

Alvin Plantinga presented his theory that naturalism and evolution are incompatible at the Grand Dialogue at Grand Valley State University on Saturday. The Grand Dialogue is meant to open conversation about the relationship between science and religion.

Plantinga is the John A. O’Brien Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at the University of Notre Dame. He said he believes that Christians can believe in evolution but cannot believe that evolution happens by accident. This is because one of the core Christian beliefs is the idea that God created human beings in his image.

“There is a science/religion — or science/quasi-religion — conflict, all right,” Plantinga said. “But it is a conflict between naturalism and science, not theistic religion and science.”

[photos by GVL/Marissa Dillon] Ryan Roberts, professor of religious studies and the Old Testament at Cornerstone University, speaks of the "Manipulation of Nature in Joshua." This presentation was part of this year's Grand Dialogue conference in the Devos Center.

By the term “quasi-religion,” Plantinga is referring to naturalism, which he defined as the “thought that there is no such thing as the God of theistic religion or anything like him.” If both naturalism and the current evolutionary theory were true, Plantinga said, then the likelihood of reliable cognitive faculties, meaning memory and perception, would be low.

As an evolutionary biologist, GVSU biology professor Michael Lombardo responded to Plantinga, supporting the idea that naturalism is the best way to explain the observations and data recorded about the world. Lombardo said naturalism is superior because it is the only form of science that purely seeks answers through natural explanations, completely disregarding any form of the supernatural for things that happen in the natural world.

“Remember in science, ideas that are not testable are of little value to increasing knowledge and understanding,” Lombardo said. “In science, we require tangible evidence, not just arguments. In fact, theistic ideas about causes of life, especially in nature, are outside the domain of science. They’re not vulnerable to either testing or verification.”

Deborah Haarsma, an astronomer, Christian, and the president at BioLogos — a company that dedicates itself to dispelling the idea that science is in conflict with religion, said she believes that God created all matter and continually upholds his laws and creation. However, she also believes that natural evolution is entirely possible and has yet to see a miracle of direct divine intervention throughout her studies of the creation of galaxies.

“For me, doing science has enhanced my faith,” Haarsma said. “When I see the beauty of the natural world, I see God’s glory. When I see the fascinating processes and physics, I see God’s creativity.”

Haarsma took issue with Lombardo’s idea that having a presupposed idea of Christian belief is incompatible with scientific discovery. She said she disagrees with this idea because in history, many influential scientists were Christians and still made top discoveries.

“The regularity of nature is because of God’s faithful governance,” Haarsma said. “And it’s worth studying the natural world because it is God’s creation. We’re learning things about God from looking at his world.”

Several breakout sessions followed Plantinga’s keynote and the responses by Lombardo and Haarsma. They discussed a wide variety of topics surrounding the central idea of the conflicts between religion and science. Such topics included “What is natural selection?” by Lombardo, “What can the Talmuds tell us about science and medicine?” by GVSU professor Sheldon Kopperl, and “Humans are religious beings: An existential-functional account” by John Cooper, a professor of philosophical theology at Calvin Theological Seminary. Breakout session presenters came from local colleges, universities, seminaries and organizations.

“Here in Grand Dialogue, we have a lot of different faiths in the room,” Haarsma said. “But I think that we have a consensus that we are respectful to each other and also seem to be interested to consider how spirituality and science fit together, and maybe share disappointment and even grief that there are a lot of students out there who do not see that science and belief can fit together.”

Index to past discussions -

Index to past articles on "Science & Religion"

Parody: Hitler Finds Out Arminian Theology is True

Hitler Finds Out Arminian Theology is True

Comment 1 - If you ever had to try to find your way out of the maze of Calvinistic confusion, this video sums it all up quite well.

Comment 2 - Exactly. This is totally wonderful. Rant: Calvinism makes me say AGHHH! It totally defeats the point of good. It's like saying good includes evil. No darkness in God's heart. God is not a liar. Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. But good doesn't include evil...

Let's Talk Forum: Calvinism & Arminianism - City On A Hill Church

Follow up Reference -

Peter Enns - "How Jesus Read His Bible," by Michael Hardin (Parts 1-4)

continue to -

Index to past articles on "Calvinism v. Arminianism"

      

* * * * * * * * * *

Downfall (2004 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downfall_(2004_film)

Downfall (German: Der Untergang) is a 2004 German war film directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel, depicting the final ten days of Adolf Hitler's reign over Nazi Germany in 1945.

The film is written and produced by Bernd Eichinger, and based upon the books Inside Hitler's Bunker, by historian Joachim Fest; Until the Final Hour, the memoirs of Traudl Junge, one of Hitler's secretaries (co-written with Melissa Müller); Albert Speer's memoirs, Inside the Third Reich; Hitler's Last Days: An Eye–Witness Account, by Gerhardt Boldt; Das Notlazarett unter der Reichskanzlei: Ein Arzt erlebt Hitlers Ende in Berlin by Doctor Ernst-Günther Schenck; and, Siegfried Knappe's memoirs, Soldat: Reflections of a German Soldier, 1936–1949.

The film was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film.

Plot

The movie begins with the real-life Traudl Junge expressing guilt and shame for admiring Hitler in her youth. In 1942 a group of German secretaries are escorted to Adolf Hitler's compound at the Wolf's Lair in East Prussia, including young Traudl.

The story resumes on April 20, 1945, Hitler's 56th birthday, as the Battle of Berlin is underway. Traudl is awakened along with her fellow secretary Gerda Christian and cookConstanze Manziarly by a loud blast. The women deduce that it is from long-range artillery, as does Hitler who emerges from his office demanding answers. Hitler learns from GeneralsWilhelm Burgdorf and Karl Koller that the Red Army is within 12 kilometers of central Berlin.

At his birthday reception, Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler and his SS adjutant Hermann Fegelein plead with Hitler to leave the city. Instead, Hitler declares, "I will defeat them in Berlin, or face my downfall." Himmler leaves to negotiate surrender terms with the Western Allies behind Hitler's back.

In another part of the city, a group of Hitler Youth members continues to build defences. Peter, a boy in the group, is urged by his father to desert. Peter resists and later, members of his unit are awarded the Iron Cross by Hitler.

SS doctor Ernst-Günther Schenck is ordered to evacuate Berlin as part of Operation Clausewitz. Schenck convinces an SS general to let him stay to treat the wounded and starving. Schenck is requested by Brigadeführer Wilhelm Mohnke to bring available medical supplies to the Reich Chancellery. After finding medical supplies at a deserted hospital, Schenck unsuccessfully tries to prevent the summary execution of two old men by members of a Greifkommando or Feldgendarmerie. Meanwhile, Hitler discusses his new scorched earth policywith his Minister of Armaments, Albert Speer. Eva Braun ignores Fegelein's pleas to leave Berlin and holds a party for the bunker inhabitants.

The next day, General Helmuth Weidling is mistakenly thought to have ordered a retreat to the West and is ordered to the bunker to be executed. Weidling explains himself to Burgdorf and Hans Krebs, only to find himself appointed commander of the Berlin Defence Area by Hitler.

Later, Hitler is informed by Wilhelm Keitel and Alfred Jodl that the 9th Army, under the command of Theodor Busse, is in danger of annihilation. Hitler announces that Waffen-SSGeneral Felix Steiner's unit will assist the 9th with help from Walther Wenck's 12th Army, and attack the Soviets from the north.

Another day passes and Krebs informs Hitler that Berlin's defenses have further disintegrated. Hitler still believes Steiner's attack will control the Russian charge. Krebs and Jodl inform Hitler that the attack never took place as Steiner could not mobilize a large enough force. Hitler dismisses everyone from the room except for Burgdorf, Krebs, Jodl, and Keitel, then flies into a rage. Hitler finally acknowledges that the war is lost, but insists that he will remain in Berlin and commit suicide.[3]

General Mohnke is outraged when he sees conscripted civilians under the command of Joseph Goebbels needlessly gunned down. Mohnke has them removed from the line of fire and returns to the Reich Chancellery to confront Goebbels. Goebbels tells Mohnke that he has no pity for the civilians, as they chose their fate. Hitler, Braun, Traudl, and Gerda Christian discuss various means of suicide whilst Krebs, Burgdorf, and other military staff get drunk. Hitler gives Christian and Traudl one cyanide capsule each. Eva Braun andMagda Goebbels type goodbye letters.

Hitler loses his sense of reality. Field Marshal Keitel is ordered to find Admiral Karl Dönitz, whom Hitler believes is gathering troops in the north, and help him plan an offensive to recover the Romanian oil fields. Oberscharführer Rochus Misch, Hitler's radio operator, receives a telegram from Luftwaffe chief Hermann Göring, asking permission to assume command and become head-of-state. Hitler orders Göring's arrest. Speer urges Hitler to halt the scorched-earth orders, but Hitler refuses. Speer confesses that he never implemented the plan. Hitler is shaken but allows Speer to leave.

Hitler summons General Robert Ritter von Greim and his mistress, ace pilot Hanna Reitsch to the bunker and appoints von Greim Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe. At dinner, Hitler receives a report that Himmler has attempted to negotiate a separate peace settlement with the Western Allies. Betrayed, Hitler explodes in a tearful rage. He orders von Greim and Reitsch to leave Berlin, rendezvous with Dönitz and ensure that Himmler is dealt with. Hitler delusively assures von Greim that his ordered counter strikes can be carried out with a thousand jet aircraft, which do not exist. Reichsphysician SS Ernst-Robert Grawitz, the head of the German Red Cross and responsible for Nazi human medical experiments, requests that he be allowed to leave Berlin for fear of reprisal. Hitler denies his request, assuring him that he has done nothing shameful. Grawitz returns to his apartment and kills his family and himself with grenades.

Hitler wishes to speak to Fegelein about Himmler's treachery but Fegelein has deserted. Hitler demands that Fegelein be found. An RSD squad arrests Fegelein. Despite a tearful plea to Hitler by Eva Braun to spare her brother-in-law, Fegelein is executed by Peter Högl. Weidling reports to Hitler there are no reserves left and air support has ceased. Mohnke reports that the Red Army is only 300 to 400 metres from the Reich Chancellery and that defending forces can hold out for only a day or two at most. Hitler reassures the officers that General Walther Wenck's 12th Army will save them. After Hitler leaves the conference room, Weidling asks the other generals if it is truly possible for Wenck to attack; they agree it is impossible.

After midnight, Hitler dictates his last will and testament to Traudl, before marrying Eva Braun. Hitler has ordered Goebbels to leave Berlin, but Goebbels intends to die with Hitler. When Hitler's adjutant Otto Günsche brings a reply from Keitel that Wenck's army cannot continue its assault, Hitler forbids all officers to surrender on pain of summary execution. Hitler then gives Günsche the order to cremate his body and that of Eva Braun. Hitler summons Dr. Schenck, Dr. Werner Haase, and nurse Erna Flegel to the bunker to thank them for their services. Dr. Haase explains to Hitler the best method for suicide as well as administering poison to Hitler's dog, Blondi. Braun gives Traudl one of her best coats and makes her promise to flee the bunker. Hitler eats his final meal in silence with Manziarly and his secretaries. He bids farewell to the bunker staff, gives Magda his own Golden Party Badge #1, and retires to his room with Braun. Frantic at the thought of a world without Hitler, Magda pleads with Hitler to change his mind. Hitler states, "Tomorrow, millions of people will curse me, but fate has taken its course."

Adolf and Eva Hitler retreat to their rooms and commit suicide. Their bodies are carried through the bunker's emergency exit to the Reich Chancellery garden. The corpses are doused in petrol and set alight; given one final Nazi salute. Thereafter, General Krebs leads a delegation through the Russian lines and tries to negotiate peace terms with Soviet Lieutenant-General Vasily Chuikov. Chuikov says that the Soviets will only accept unconditional surrender, but Krebs does not have the authority, so he returns to the bunker.

Magda Goebbels poisons her six children while her husband waits. Then Goebbels and Magda proceed up to the Chancellery garden, where Goebbels shoots his wife and himself. The people remaining in the bunker agree that they must try to break out. Krebs and Burgdorf commit suicide as the rest evacuate. Weidling goes out and broadcasts to all Berliners that the Führer is dead; he calls for a ceasefire with General Chuikov.

Meanwhile, Schenck and Walther Hewel stay with Mohnke and his remaining SS troops, who debate about what to do once the Soviet troops arrive. Schenck tries to talk sense into Hewel who promised Hitler he would kill himself. When news reaches the officers that Berlin has been surrendered, Hewel and several SS officers shoot themselves. Outside, child soldier Peter finds that his post has been obliterated and his colleagues are dead. On a side street, the menacing Greifkommando or Feldgendarmerie men stalk across his path. Peter enters a nearby apartment and finds the squad has executed his parents.

While the Red Army ranks are only blocks away, Traudl decides to leave. Peter emerges in civilian clothes, takes her hand and pulls her through the masses. Moving ahead, Traudl blunders into a celebrating drunken Red Army soldier. Peter tugs her arm and she hastens away. At a ruined bridge, Peter finds a bicycle and they pedal away from Berlin. The epilogue then tells the fates of the other characters and one final segment where the real life Traudl appears before the credits.