Journal entry on readings associated with Plantinga, Ch. 2

1. A. Dillard's writing demonstrates an ability to see the extraordinary in the ordinary. What examples does she give that are most striking to you? In what ways does this kind of writing remind you of the mental "tour of a local religious site" that Jamie Smith gave us in the opening plenary lecture?
2. Dillard says, “the Creator ... churns out the intricate texture of least works that is the world with a spendthrift genius and an extravagance of care.” What passages from Job 38-41, the episode where God himself responds to Job's complaints over his reversal of fortune, reflect most strikingly for you these words of Dillard's? Does this idea refute the idea, held by some, that the world is nothing more than raw materials for us to use as we see fit?
3. In Walking on Water, author Madeleine L'Engle wrote, “When I try to find contemporary, twentieth century mystics, to help me in my own search for meditation and contemplation, I turn to the cellular biologists and astro-physicists, for they are dealing with the nature of being itself, and their questions are theological ones.” Elaborate on this statement in light of Dillard's piece.
4. In the Preface to Engaging God's World, Plantinga says “Calvin believed that if we obey the Bible's great commandment to love God with our whole mind, as well as with everything else, then we will study the splendor of God's creation in the hope of grasping part of the ingenuity and grace that form it.” In what way is Dillard's piece an example of this? What have you thus far studied at college that has helped you to love God more fully with your mind?
5. Calvin College is, most definitely, not the kind of place that favors the “unrelated” view of science and religion put forth by Gould. But, in Chapter 2, Plantinga says “Scripture tells us who created the wonders of the world, and why. Study of these wonders tells us, at least in part, how God did his wonders, and when.” Isn't he putting forth a type of NOMA himself? What flaws do you see in the NOMA put forth by Gould? Is Plantinga's suggestion free of these flaws?
6. P.W. Atkins, quoted today in class, represents a scientific philosophy of reductionism, where complex phenomena are all broken into their simplest component parts which are then thought to be sufficient explanation of the whole. Dillard says, “The first question — the one crucial one — of the creation of the universe and the existence of some-thing as a sign and an affront to nothing, is a blank one. I can't think about it. So it is to the fringe of that question that I affix my attention, the fringe of the fish's fin, the intricacy of the world's spotted and speckled detail.” Why is it that, for some, the details are the thing, while for others they serve as pointers to something greater than ourselves?