Intelligent Design

I've never heard of him before, that I recall.

I did the "Surprise Me!" on Amazon and read a couple of pages. The section I got was an interesting segment on the history around the rise of the Copernican model. I have no idea where he was going with it but I'm a sucker for history. Not sure that I'd be willing to shell out $30 for a ~150 page paperback though.

I noticed in the banner of related products that a lot of people have written books about Pannenberg's works, so obviously he's known. As I looked through, it appears he wrote a comprehensive systematic theology set. That sounds like something I might get into.

Anyway, he seems to be well respected by the people who know about his work.

I'm liking this a lot, though I'm not sure I'm understanding it clearly.  Two reasons it's very appealing to me: it's taking a generally philosophical approach rather than a scientific/empirical one, and the philosophical approach seems to fit with my ideas about the way I think things work (but this may be me imposing my postmodern view onto Pannenberg, I'm not sure).  I'll throw out a sketch of what I understand so far--'cause if someone else is familiar with some of these concepts and can clarify that would help me out, and also to give a sense of what his take is.

One thing that I liked straight away was a distinction he made between the scientific approach to nature--which involves abstraction into general principles--laws of nature, and nature as a series of contingent events--as history.  And I think the way he's talking about "creation" is not in the sense of an origin, but in the sense of an ongoing process that lies behind that contingency.

Then he talks briefly about the way in which the development of the idea of inertia undercut the need for creation in that sense.

But then he says the idea of inertia changes if one thinks not in terms of bodies but in terms of events: "If the stuff of the universe is finally made up of events rather than of solid bodies and if the latter are already the products of the regularities of events, then their inertia or self-persistence is no more self-evident than any other natural regularity"

I'm not sure I quite understand that--but it seems as if he might be saying that science by abstracting is looking at the products of contingent events when it defines inertia, but that if one goes behind the abstraction, contingency and God as creative force behind contingency can be theorized?

Biology and Spirit--At this point in the book I'm fairly lost on this concept, but can point to what I think the idea is in this quotation: "To the theologian, the description of the evolution of life in terms of a generalized field theory must be extremely suggestive..."  Yup...guess I'm not a theologian :-)  Seems very important but what exactly it suggests--I have no idea.  He does cite Michael Polyani if that's a help.

Eternity and Space-Time: I think I understood an analogy here which was helpful.  He says if Eternity is defined as timelessness then it's relation to time is purely negative.  But a way of including the temporal and the timeless at once can be likened to thinking of the relation of real numbers to complex numbers.  And here's another quotation that I thought seemed important (but which I didn't quite get): "If...the ancient philosophical Logos doctrince can be reformulated in terms of modern information theory, then it does not seem completely incomprehnsible that a field theory of information can do justic to the cooperation of Logos and spirit in the creation of the world."  I know I'm somewhat reminded of what I was quoting over on the Granny Maggie thread about the analogy between Mary bearing Jesus (who is the Logos?), and people bearing the word of God.  But something that ocurred to me out of that was to think of Jesus not as God embodied, but God turned into a story.  

I had moments like that when I was reading Schroeder's third book. He kept talking about wisdom contained within atoms and cells and it seemed out of place. It all made sense in the end though. Pannenberg sounds considerably more dense, however.

Creation as an ongoing process seems like a different idea than what I've been exposed to. I know some refer to "The Creation" as more of a persistent result than an event, although I'm not certain they actually think of it that way.

I think I'm actually understanding what he means by that inertia sentence, although I had to read it several times. I was arguing with a guy who was convinced that science would eventually explain everything. My point was that there is no point at which science is self-reflexive. We know the speed of light in a vacuum but not why it must be that speed and not something else or variable. We know the diameter of a proton but not the mechanics that determine that size. His counter was to call that "God-of-the-gaps", which is of course silly because I didn't suggest anything to fill these "gaps". My point was that for every scientific principle we uncover, we are merely presented with another cause we don't know anything about. There's no reason to think that chain will ever result in any sort of "final answer", at least within the realms of science.

The biology and spirit part sound like a dense version of Schroeder's third book. I think the quote you have there is a little too vague for me to tease any solid meaning out of.

Eternity is a fun concept to play with. It's always fun to read a new take on that. As for Logos doctrine, I don't know many people that honestly say they fully understand it. In this case, it sounds like he's toying around with what many people throughout history have struggled with in relation to Christ: How can the infinite become finite and remain infinite? The answer has always been "Logos", but like "42" from the Hitchhiker's series, the answer needs help.

Kind of repeating but with a little more depth--and maybe this is similiar to what you are saying above about scientific principles.

Pannenberg says that with the discovery of inertia, creation, as in the notion of origin, was not disturbed.  But the idea of continuous conservation of what was created becomes superfluous.  Thus deism.  The 19th century's clockwork view of nature.

He then counters this view in two ways:

1) By suggesting that we look at nature in a less abstract way than science does--not as approximations of the natural processes in uniformity, but as historical and contingent sequence.  This kind of historical perspective, he says, is the perspective of theology.  The phrase "unique and contingent sequence of singular events" might be helpful here--each event in spacetime being seen as unique and singular rather than as an instance of a law.

2) And to take as the subject of nature not bodies, but fields (following Faraday)--the body being only the manifestation of the concentration of force at particular points in a field.  And to imagine the field as divine spirit.

OK--here's a potential problem I see with that point.  To make a theological conclusion rest on a scientific theory (I think that's what's happening here)--means putting the conclusion at risk if the theory is ever overthrown.  

Hehe I'm probably going to have to read this book so you and I can really communicate about it. I'm referring back to Schroeder because it's the closest I've got.

I do think you should read Schroeder because it almost sounds like Pannenberg is expecting you to know things that you don't know. I'm picking up some of what he's saying because it resonates with what I read in Schroeder.

I can't intelligently say whether or not he's really having a theological conclusion rest on a scientific theory or not. However, I wouldn't worry about the underlying theories being overthrown. The theories themselves aren't exactly what we'd call "solid", but they are based entirely on empirical evidence. As Schroeder points out in his book, the reason we know photons exist is because they have to. As we learn more, we may find out the particulars aren't what we expected, but there's a definite limit as to just how wrong we can be.

Pannenberg's idea of fields is also perfectly inline with particle physics. The most solid "solid" is well over 99.9999% void space. What makes them appear and act solid is the strength of the bonds between the individual atoms that comprise the substance. The only reason you can't freely pass your hand through the desk in front of you is because the various force bonds that hold your hand together cannot overcome the bonds that hold the desk together and vice versa. If the bonds were to not be present but the objects were still somehow able to hold their shape, you would be able to pass your hand through the desk and the odds of any atomic collision would be almost zero because of the gargantuan distances between "neighboring" atoms.

As for the divine presence in that, I thought Schroeder presented it in terms easier to grasp, although not so easy that I feel comfortable trying to accurate relay them from memory. As best I recall, his position was that in order for particles to behave the way they do, the photon has to "know" where an electron will be at a certain time in order to intercept it -- something Heisenberg illustrated as being impossible.

Or I should go back and start with Schroeder :-)  I think I have this bad habit of going off the deep end...

You're right, Pannenberg is probably basing things on a theological foundation that I don't have.  But then he starts throwing in Popper and Kuhn and the like (he kind of has a philosophy of science becomes theology of science approach) and I get all comfy feeling like I'm in familiar territory.  But I'll go back and try Schroeder ("Baby steps...baby steps...")

I don't worry about the theories being overthrown--just as a general principle whether theology should rest on scientific theory as theories can be overthrown.

Hey that stuff about passing your hand through the desk--I remember reading that in Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything.  I especially liked his idea that we don't ever make physical contact--there's always space between things.  So I'm not actully sitting in this chair--I'm floating above it :-)

It's exceedingly rare for a full-on theory to be overthrown.

I don't think I'm familiar with Popper or Kuhn.

I've never read Bryson but I hear good things. Someday...

Heh, kinda makes the definition of touch inconceivable...

Ah, yeah, was remembering those and wondering if they'd be good choices for him.

Have to say I was pretty impressed with the question--well, and the self-reflection that preceded it.  I think he must have a soft sell 'cause I know he has friends with very different political and religious views from his.

Thanks for the recommendation

have been thinking of attempting to (re)read the Bible myself.  That's actually a great idea and I like the idea of working in Critical Thinking skills with it.

So can't help with books that unlock secrets of the universe...but if we find the actual lock you're the smith to look for? 

That would be a true statement, though I would probably just smash the lock with a rock or something.  While the mechanically gifted use logic and reason, brut force is usually the tool of choice.  Unless it was somehow important to not break the lock...I'd still probably break it.

#3 Son

... he'd still reall really WANT to break it.