VORTEX AIMing

[Qarel]

Conrad,

I don't know whether the scientific and theological viewpoints will end up at the same point. It would be nice if they could reach a kind of compatibility, and a recognition of their separate competencies. For the interpretation of the material world, science shouldn't be bothered too much by theology, for the interpretation of the spiritual world the roles should be reversed. The moral sphere might be an interesting meeting point, where both should have a voice.

I see you use revelation in a way I did not intend, so I will explain. Revelation as I meant is the self-revelation of God, not the discovery of facts about our world and our subsequent interpretation. Of course, things are a bit thornier than that, as all revelation in the sense I mean also incorporates interpretation, but the starting point is not so much material as spiritual.

It seems strange to harness an interpretation of the world as cruel and destructive against the goodness or even existence of Big C, but you mention this with special reference to creationists. They will not be impressed, as for them this world is tainted by the Fall, and all that is bad is caused by that tragic incident. More enlightened Christians know that life has developed through evolution, so this knowledge doesn't amount to much of a revelation for them either. (And, as a sidenote, it seems strange to qualify what happens in the world as cruelty the way Attenborough seems to do. While I would allow that human beings can be cruel, I would hesitate to call non-intelligent beings cruel, at least not unqualified.)

I would also like to point out that the majority vote is that prayers should never considered to be answered by war, rape, child molestation and whatever cruelty people perpetrate on each other. (War might be an exception for people suffering under oppression, but even then not unqualified.) Prayers that remain unanswered materially might be considered answered in a spiritual sense; that was my meaning. As a consequence, Big C doesn't need to be as convoluted as you suppose. Big C is generally considered to be against cruelty of any kind.

You are right that the discussion would benefit from more thoughts on the combination of ontology and cosmology, and that theology isn't necessary in that discussion. Theology is only necessary to clarify the language and other structures of faith. But you will find mostly theologians interested in questions like these (and then only a few), because most other people just don't care one way or the other. As a matter of fact, a modern and very complicated attempt at doing this is Process Philosophy (and Process Theology), first developed by A.N. Whitehead in his Process and Reality (1929). I haven't read it!

Regards,

Karel