Replies

As God directs everything, being omnipotent, even ‘randomness’ bows to His direction or rather is subject to His direction — this is another deep subject, as one has to wonder how something could be ‘random’ when it is ‘directed’ By God — but perhaps it would be better to state it is ‘used’ by God for His own purposes.

Yes, I entirely agree the problem can be stated in that way, and such statement would be absolutely true. But this does not shed any light into the nature of randomness itself.

I think Alamo-Girl has the correct common sense (and mathematical) definition of a random event: I.e., it is an unpredicted event, meaning it's an event that a human being cannot ascribe to a known cause in advance of the occurrence of the phenomenon he observes. Since it has no ascribable cause, it appears to be "undirected," perhaps purposeless — just a freak accident maybe. Still, to me, you cannot obtain a highly ordered system out of a causal chain of freak accidents, not even if you can prove the universe is "eternal"; i.e., had no beginning.

Anyhoot, I'm not at all in-amicable to the ideas you presented in your last lovely post, CottShop. I just want to know what the term "random" means in the natural sciences nowadays. Plus for some strange reason I have some deep-set, maybe intuitive idea that "random development," via the general situation of contingency in nature, is what introduces novelty and change in a natural system, preventing it from becoming completely "static" — which to my mind is practically indifferentiationable from the physical realization of thermodynamic entropy.

Anyhoot, what I truly liked about Stephen Barr's article in was that here, we have a physicist, speaking directly to other physicists, regarding his proposal of the reconcilability of divine Providence and "randomness" in nature, as these terms are used in the physical sciences nowadays.

You mentioned that you didn't think that "time constraints play into this." By which I take you to mean that the very fact of the eternity of God, and His Purposive Will, fully accounts for all organic (and for that matter, inorganic) entities in nature. I totally agree with you. But that is not a scientific insight.

If you want to have a conversation with scientists, you can't just say "God did it!" No more than they can just say, "(Random) nature did it."

And that's what's so spectacularly engaging about this book I've been citing recently, Divine Action and Natural Selection. I've been aware of this book for well over a year now, from its early pre-production stages, when "editorial posture" was being fleshed out. It finally went to press last October — with what I'm satisfied to say is a proper and just editorial tone.

This book is a confab of scientists speaking among themselves regarding the hot-button issues of Darwinian evolution theory vs. ID. At bottom, it raises — and ventilates from various scientific and cultural perspectives — the issue of whether science and religion, faith and reason, are mutually-exclusive "magisteria," or whether they may overlap in a certain key sense.

The book's plenty pricey. But oh, worth every penny, IMHO! Whatta feast!

Thank you so very much for your kind birthday wishes for my Dad, dear brother in Christ! And also for your keen, perceptive essay/post!

I think Alamo-Girl has the correct common sense (and mathematical) definition of a random event: I.e., it is an unpredicted event, meaning it's an event that a human being cannot ascribe to a known cause in advance of the occurrence of the phenomenon he observes. Since it has no ascribable cause, it appears to be "undirected," perhaps purposeless — just a freak accident maybe.

I think that it can also be applied to any event the outcome of which cannot yet be predicted because of the large number of variables and possible paths it can take being involved.

If we only knew enough, we could predict anything.

Hmmmm.....

[[If you want to have a conversation with scientists, you can’t just say “God did it!” No more than they can just say, “(Random) nature did it.”]]

Oh, I aggree with htat- I was just freeing myself from the constraints of being ‘politically/scientifically’ compliant for a bit

[[And that’s what’s so spectacularly engaging about this book I’ve been citing recently, Divine Action and Natural Selection.]]

Sounds liek maybe they too are freeign htemselves from the constraints of political/scientific compliance too- Sounds liek it might be a very telling book to see how they think behind hte restrictive mask of naturalism

Thank you so much for your outstanding essay-post, dearest sister in Christ, and thank you for your encouragements!

I also really enjoyed the excerpts from Barr's article! The book does indeed sound like a feast.

Plus for some strange reason I have some deep-set, maybe intuitive idea that "random development," via the general situation of contingency in nature, is what introduces novelty and change in a natural system, preventing it from becoming completely "static" — which to my mind is practically indifferentiationable from the physical realization of thermodynamic entropy.

Seems to me that things would be rather dull if every event could be predicted.

Nevertheless, if there were one more expanded dimension of time - an observer from that perspective could accurately say to an observer in our 4 dimensions (proceeding on a time line) precisely what will happen next.