relda,
I admit, it was I who brought mathematics into correlation with theology on this forum by pointing to formal similarities between undefinable initial terms entering into unfalsifiable axioms of some mathematical theory, and undefinable initial concepts entering into unfalsifiable “givens” of (a) dogmatic theology. Of course, I also admit that there are many aspects of mathematics and of dogmatic theology that cannot be correlated this way. The epistemological meaning and usefulness of each one of them has to be explored (and defended) separately.

It is also easier, and I think not only for me, to defend the role of mathematics in providing knowledge about the outside world, than that of theology. And this not only because the “outside world“ for theology is quite different, and admittedly more ambiguous, than the “outside world” mathematics can provide understanding of. So let me keep to mathematics, although, I am afraid, this brings us too far away from the topic of the article we were supposed to comment on.

What Feynman apparently meant was that not all (pure) mathematical constructs need to be fruitful in the sense of being applicable in a viable physical theory. Well that is quite obvious. There are many mathematicians (I would say most of them) who believe in the reality of a world of mathematics separate from the physical world, the so-called Platonists. They think that the mathematician discovers, rather than creates, although there is always this dual aspect of discovering-creating to his/her work. I sometimes think that something similar could be said about the dual aspect of a (systematic) theologian‘s work, but I do not want to stress that point.

It is now generally accepted that Einstein was simply wrong in his mistrust of quantum mechanics. Intelligent design means a different (widely accepted) concept in theology, and a different (widely discredited) concept in biology. I am not sure which one you were referring to. God created (or designed if you like) the chance-and-necessity mechanism (c.f. Jacques Monod) driving the evolution of the universe, but that is a proposition from metaphysics or theology, not science.

George,
I'm not sure there is any real distinguishing between theolgocial or biological ID. Sells wrote in 2005 (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=167), "intelligent design is a more sophisticated version that attempts to escape from the absurdities of creationism." and certainly regarded it, per se, as unambiguous when he continues later with, "All natural theology is therefore an absurdity."

Sells, no doubt, is in direct opposition to William Dembski, a Southern Baptist academic (Ph D, Maths, Philosophy; M D, Theology) , who sees ID as a bridge between science and theolgoy. On this one, however, I'd have to agree with Sells and say no such bridge exists. "Leave science to the scientists", as he'd say.

Sell's suggests that many believe in God for the wrong and perhaps superficial reasons - ID can certainly lend itself toward to such superficiality. As a recent poll suggests, the overwhelming reason people believe in God is because of the order and complexity they observe in the natural world and the evidence these are supposed to provide for design.

The argument for a natural theology is certainly contained in ID and the contradiction in Dembski's argument is this. He states traditional theologies, whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Mormon take as their basic datum a divine revelation. This revelation is encapsulated in inspired and authoritative texts that have an objective sense and are binding on believers. Natural theology, by definition, will 'naturally' counter (or contradict) this authority. Dembsky continues in his argument that the unchanging God of traditional theologies necessarily gives way to the evolving God of process theologies. This finally gives way, he argues, to a panentheism with its modified transcendence where God is inseparable from and dependent on the world. However, the Second Council of Constantinople, the universal Church , proclaimed a panentheistic vision of the Trinity, where the essence (ousia) of God is completely transcendent, and yet, immanent.

Can the dogmatics of Christianity where, "the hard slog of finding God in our received scriptural traditions" (Sells), outperform the heresy of ID? Perhaps so, but it is something we must discover for ourselves - hence the dialectic.

relda,
Thanks for the rich feedback. Sell’s dislike of natural theology (the God of philosopher’s vs. the God of Abraham etc.) is well known. Creationists were originally people who wanted to bring God into existing gaps of this or that scientific explanation, but anti-religionists like to lump them with anybody who believes in God. I agree that ID, or just “design” are terms normally not used in theology.

I have to admit that I cannot follow Dembski’s reasoning using statistics, but since I do not think that you can prove the existence of God by scientific (or mathematical) methods anyhow, I accept the argument of other statisticians who claim Dembski is wrongly applying mathematical statistics. ID as a scientific theory seems to be (from e.g. a European point of view, Christian or not) just an American oddity.

The ID people remind me of somebody who has won Tattslotto, and thinks some benevolent designer wanted to reward him. Nevertheless, there are “designers”, people who “created” Tattslotto using their knowledge of statistics, the same as God created (or designed) the world, including everything that Richard Dawkins understands about neo-darwinism or genetics, using evolution. However, this belief is part of my faith, it is nothing one can prove or falsify using scientific methods or observations. John Polkinghorne, for instance, says that God lets the world create itself via evolution, including making mistakes and hurting itself, because there is no other way to create beings with a free will. This is the (natural) theological meaning of the term “creation“ that does not have a counterpart in science.

I also have to confess that I have problems with process theology. My favourite joke is that I can understand Bertrand Russell but I do not agree with him, whereas I agree with Alfred North Whitehead but I do not understand him. Process involves time, and that is “in the eye of the beholder“, not necessarily a part of God‘s nature that we can understand nothing about (except for symbolic representations in this or that Holy Book).

George and Sells,

I suspect Einstein still had one foot back in Classic Mechanics, whereas Heisenberg was less restrained. The former would see events in terms of cause and effect only and latter in terms of determinism and indeterminism.

Science allows for the use of "reasonable agreement" to progress theory until a better theory comes along. Theology tends to be more doctrinaire established by church councils.

The Trinity and Virgin birth doctrines are held too solidly by the Christian given the documentation available before the twentieth century. The Dead Sea Scrolls would such that earlier theologies did a thorough work over. The Sons of God referred to the Righteous [towards Man] and the Pious [towards God]. The Damamascus Document [?] would suggest Jesus was attempting to establish an eternal Davanic Kingdom of Heaven [of the Righteous and Pious] on Earth in opposition to the Herodians who were Idumaens not having the equal claim to the Throne of the Jews as the Herods [Roman puppets].

The Council of Constantinople [381?] did not have the resources to establish valid doctrine of the Trinity and other councils the use of the word Virgin. Moreover, Jesus' natural birth would give greater claim to the House of David [via Heli and Joseph]. Herein, Jesus would be the Son of Man. Pilot was not Proconsul of Rome he was a Prefect, a Tax Collector. By redendering unto Caesar that which was Caesar, I spectulate, Jesus was distancing himself from the zealots, whom were trouablesome to the Romans and defied Jews paying taxes. Herein, Jesus' comment to Pilot lessened his chances of being crucified [against his subsititionary mission]. The churches seeme to have missed this possibibility. Jesus was more inclusive of the Gentiles and all nations under the Kingdom of Heaven ruled by David, than whe the anti-Roman Zealots. The were anti-Roman because the Romans were occupies, made Jews pay taxes and were unclean to make sacrafices to God.

"... the Second Council of Constantinople ... - relda

I suspect that very few Christians would realise that the development of this doctrine of the centuries, because they, the church-goers, indwell [Polanyi] in the performance of the mass/sermon, wherein the priest/minister is the authory.

Regarding the members of the Trinity equally sharing the same ousia, herein, it is intersting the Bible itself presents the inequality in the members of the Trinity in that the only unforgivable sin is against the Holy Spitit. Triune godheads go back to Eygptian [Serapis]a and this Christian Trinity became enforced doctrine between 325-381.

Matt 12:30-32 suggest inequalities:

30. He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

31. Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

32. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost sent by Jesus Christ it shall not be forgiven him,

Also Luke 1:32:

"He will be great and called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will "give" [emphasis added] him the Throne of his father. [The House of David?] [Did Jesus receive the Throne of David? James seems more worthy at Law, because was not illegitimate. Virgin birth, wich can mean birth when then the virgin is merely bethoved. Jesus "would" have been illegitimate.

Also Dead Scholl Sea 4Q246 (Plate 4, Column 2(1)) - {Trans. Eisenman & Wise]:

He will called the son of God of the Most High. Like shooting stars [My comment: means transient kingdoms] tha they saw thus will be their Kingdom ...[a war period]... His Kingdom will an Eternal Kingdom, amd he will be Righteous in all his Ways.

The above suggest to the a monethesist God given a son of Righteous eternal rule of the Kingdom of God on Earth via The House of David.

Non-theistically, the thin edgeof the wedge regarding the House of David starts the father, when the [Idumaean] Herodians delegated power to the House of David, the [lowly] task of converting the Gentiles [Thiering].

* My fellow atheist, Richard Dawkins, is wrong about the need Jesus to go thousand years [?] before Christ. His research is poor. With the rise rise of Herod ind 41 BCE the mission to Jewish Diaspora started. The birth of Jesus 7 BCE are separateby only 36 years.

Herod I the Great died in Jericho, 4 BCE. Mathew 2 seems a little wonky too about Herod.