{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/2799",
    "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it.  Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.",
    "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'"
  },
  "archive": "urth",
  "thread": {
    "id": 2799,
    "subject": "sub-creation/theology [Digest urth.v030.n173]",
    "messages": 1,
    "voices": 1,
    "first": "2001-08-22T14:09:20+00:00",
    "last": "2001-08-22T14:09:20+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0030-0661@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "John Bishop",
        "address": "jbishop at zko.dec.com"
      },
      "date": "2001-08-22T14:09:20+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) Re: sub-creation/theology [Digest urth.v030.n173]",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "I think there's another Wolfean theological point to be made \nabout the use of Reason to understand the Universe.\n\nDan says:\n       :\n    ...The detectives, professional and amateur, have\n    problems that they solve, usually with a combination\n    of reason and metaphysics, and so of course Wolfe is\n    trying to tell us that our own universe is similarly\n    tractable.\n        :\n\nAnd of course that's really worth digging into.\n\nIf God makes the universe and us in it in such a way\nthat we _can_ use our reason to understand it, then\nthat tells us about God.  We note that there are some\npuzzles which are hard (chemistry) and some which are\neasy (Galilean physics).  We note that some hard bits\nhave easy approximations (Aristotelean or \"cartoon\"\nphysics).\n\nThis all seems to imply three things:\n\n1.  We are _meant_ to use reason to uncover the Universe,\n    and have been given a graded series of exercises to\n    help us do this;  Reason is therefore good, God is good;\n\n2.  This is not the only possible universe and has been\n    carefully created to have this characteristic structure\n    (c.f. Mozart and \"Peace\" in my earlier message; the \n    Universe is a work of art (or Art));\n\n3.  We are therefore _meant_ to deduce this and thus be\n    lead to see there is a creation, and so be lead on by\n    this path as well to much of what used to be called \n    Natural Theology;\n\nIn other words, it's a miracle that the Universe is comprehensible\nat all, and doubly so that it's comprehensible by Reason.  Gravity\nby the inverse square?  Euclidian space (more or less)?  Orbits \nthat are conic sections?  How obvious a set-up do you need to catch\nthe clue?\n\nNow I personally don't believe this, but I think it's a\nrespectable argument, and one which has an appeal to people\nwho write or read mysteries.\n\nIt's Deism rather than Christianity, but it's not explicitly\nmodern.  The Classical world was receptive to the power of\nReason.  And since Lewis has said that the way we are created\n\"in His image\" is that we have reason and can love and create,\nit fits in with much Christian theology as well (except for not\nmentioning sin and the need for redemption).\n\n\t-John Bishop"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}