It’s not much of an evangelical theological concept! Every one of the half-dozen evangelical schools I became familiar with that taught theology avoided this like the plague.
There’s a seminar moderated by Neil DeGrasse Tyson on the topic of “nothing”. In it one physicist tries to explain how the universe started from nothing, but Tyson and another participant pounced on him on the basis that if you have natural laws at work then you don’t have nothing.
To explain any phenomenon is to propose how it stems from some other phenomena - and to corroborate this hypothesis by empirical observations and experiments. The work of science is to choose the best possible hypotheses and to check them empirically. And this work, of course, is not what I was talking about here.
Well, I guess that these schools do a big mistake by rejecting quite a fruitful theological concept just because it is associated with Thomism or I don’t know what. In fact, it is a departure not only from the Catholic tradition, but even from the Protestant orthodoxy of the previous centuries.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’ve meant!
I think the fear was that it would make the scriptures uncertain, causing people to doubt.
Well, that’s a vivid example of people trying to avoid some difficulties and, as a result, creating even greater problems.
Except that sometimes the data shows that this is not the case. That is what happened with quantum physics. Sure there were many scientists like Einstein who had an idea similar to yours and so they found quantum physics hard to accept. But the data continues to deny this expectation. So this example shows that the presumption you employ here is not really a restriction of science at all.
Some people like to equate this with a failure of science to provide an explanation. But I do not agree. I can supply a theological explanation. It is not science but it shows why God might have done things that way and thus why equating this to no explanation is wrong. The only thing it shows is that science is not a work to explain everything in every way and never has been. But this doesn’t mean it fails to provide an explanation within the bounds of what scientific explanations are really supposed to do.
I agree with your ultimate conclusion that science is not to explain everything.
But I must add, just for the sake of clarity, that my words have nothing to do with Einstein’s rejection of quantum mechanics’ certain aspects, his conjecture about hidden variables, and the like.
In other words, I don’t insist that quantum indeterminacy is only epistemic and that a better theory would provide a precise and complete description of quantum particle at every moment of time.
I state nothing but the following plain observations: despite quantum indeterminacy, fundamental interactions are not absolutely chaotic; on the contrary, they are characterized by certain regularities grasped by science. That is to say, the Standard Model describes a certain kind of order.
This ordered reality may stem from some other, more fundamental level of order; if this is the case, science may sometime discover this “more fundamental level”.
Or the fundamental interactions described by the Standard Model may already be the most fundamental level of order, which is not derived from anything else.
In this case, science would admit that this order is observed, is measured, but is not caused by anything else - it just exists this way, and that’s all.
In any case, it is at the most fundamental level of natural order, whatever it be, that the realm of science ends.
Now the work of philosophy starts: it is to make a tautological observation that a reality that is not caused by anything else exists independently, is inherently active and self-determined.
And then the work of theology starts: it is to notice the likeness of this philosophical concept to the revealed truths about God.
That is a fair but subjective assessment… which I can agree with.
Exactly! It MAY and so we can also say it may not. We theists certainly choose to believe that it does - that God has reasons for why He made things this way. Naturalists and atheists choose otherwise.
Why is it a subjective assessment to say that natural regularities that allow for correct predictions - in other words, for predictions that get empirical confirmation - constitute a degree of order?
Well, [many] naturalists and atheists don’t think over the consequences of their choice. To say that some reality doesn’t stem from anything is the same as to say that this reality exists on its own, independently. It’s just tautology, nothing to discuss here.
Likewise, to say that some reality exists without any external causes and sources is the same as to say that it is inherently active; in other words, it exists because of itself and is characterized by a degree of order because of itself.
Thus, the only way to conceive of nature as existing on its own is to characterize the most fundamental level of nature as natura naturans - as Baruch Spinoza, the truly consistent naturalist, did. Spinoza understood very well what he did - he ascribed divine attributes to this natura naturans (hence his famous expression Deus sive natura).
So, divine attributes - independence and inherent activity - are the indespensable properties of the most fundamental level of reality. It’s not possible to consistently think of nature without assuming God. The real questions to discuss are only these: what or who is God? Is it just the self-generated fundamental order, the spinozist natura naturans that is indifferent to human predicament? Or is God somehow interested in humanity and its destiny as almost every religion supposes? And if the latter is the case, which religion has the best grasp of how God relates to humanity?
Certainly, these are not the questions for science to answer. But a rational discussion of them is still possible by simultaneously reading the religious scriptures and rehearsing what we know about the natural order. Subjective preferences are inevitably involved here - but subjective preference is not the same as arbitrariness. A Christian claim that the crucified Christ and the fundamental order of nature reveal one and the same manner of divine action is not without reason.
I think we would agree on most of this. It seems similar to a conversation I had a long time ago. It was when I first tried to engage scientific minded naturalists. The undergrad in physics claimed quantum indeterminacy was really justified. My response was that if these events are truly indeterminate, then at least every once and a while they should have an effect on the macro scale.
Turns out that may be driving organic chemistry on Titan, and possibly effecting DNA evolution.
My view is the quantum flux is analogous to the chaotic sea pictured in the Bible, and that Christ is Lord of even this.
It is not a trope.
We have multiple scrolls from the dead sea community with hundreds of variations and some of which do impact theological positions.we also have progressions and multiple versions of sacred histories.
There are also important disagreements between Masoretic, Septuagint, and others.
In the new testament, early Christianity is much more diverse and canonization is quite messy. For apostolic and church fathers, most of these manuscripts are quite old. For early canons, there are disagreements.
Then there are issues such as the increased romanization and bowing to the pater familias in later codes compared to early. We have reasonable reasons to consider the text as non-autograph and sometimes written in contrast to others whether about parousia or apologetics.
Scripture is spirit-breathes and therefore life-giving. The process of canonization and changing of the text is messy
I don’t see any calculation given and doubt there can be any. You are talking to a physicist here. By the standards of physics this statement is highly subjective.
Even more theists don’t think over the consequences of their choice. Generally it is those who go with the majority opinion who are less thoughtful/rational. I happen think the percentage is shifting as the atheist/naturalist viewpoints become a greater portion of the population, but for a long time a lack of thought has not been characteristic of atheists and naturalists.
Theological speculations are not well known for wide spread agreement let alone a rational expectation that other people should agree.
The bar for rational discussion you are setting is not a very high one. You can equally say rational discussion is possible for the worlds of Narnia and Star Trek. Certainly the premise of accepting the scriptures of a particular religion is not good basis for an expectation that others outside of your religion will agree. And even within your religion, interpretations vary a great deal.
This is demonstrably incorrect. Frankly one can make a better argument that it is not possible to consistently think of nature when you do assume God. Comparing scientific community to the theist community, you find much greater consistency of thought in the former (who do not make assumptions of God part of their scientific investigations).
You seem to suppose that mathematical calculation is the only language that allows for “objective” statements - that is, the statements of facts rather than of subjective preferences. This is, certainly, a widespread assumption; however, it was never proven to be universally true.
I understand that you speak out of your experience. But experiences may be very diverse. For instance, I belong to a tiny Protestant Christian minority in a predominantly secular country. Being a Protestant Christian is anything but a conformity to standard opinions here.
I’m not imposing my premise on anybody. My starting point is the Christian Gospel as I claim that Jesus’s bold self-humiliation and self-sacrifice are the correct image of divine action that creates and sustains the entire world; this understanding of creation as kenosis corresponds quite well with what is known about the world. But it goes without saying that a proponent of any other worldview is also free to attempt demonstrating a congruence between the common knowledge about the world and their foundational scriptures.
Here you seem to equate “thinking of nature” with “scientific investigation” (God is certainly not a factor in the latter!)
But scientific investigation is something more specific: it is to make hypotheses on how some observable phenomena are related to some other existing things or processes and to check these hypotheses empirically.
Thinking about interconnections in nature is not everything that would always interest human beings. E.g., there is a question of the world’s origin. It is beyond the scope of any science - but not beyond the scope of rational thinking (in the broadest possible sense, the world as a whole is an aggregate of everything that exist; any cause or condition cited by a scientific explanation must exist; in other words, sciences explore the connections between the elements of this “aggregate” but not the origin of the latter).
In short, there is a legitimate place for a certain metaphysics in between sciences and religion. This intermediary allows for a meaningful natural theology; whereas, without the former, sciences and religion lack a language that the both sides would comprehend.
It is not about calculation but about the measurements from written procedures anyone can follow to get the same results. This provides a reasonable expectation that others should agree. But logic alone only works from premises accepted on faith and it is not reasonable to expect other people to accept them just because you say so.
You are right in that I see no substantial objectivity in the things of religion. The value I see in religion comes from the fact that life requires subjective participation and the objective observation of science is therefore inadequate for living our lives. Thus subjectivity is the whole point of religion and the only reason I can see for pretending to objectivity in religion is a desire to force ones religion on other people.
Yes. In those circumstances I would expect atheists and naturalists to be the less thoughtful ones on average.
Interesting. I was not aware of this book and the idea is intriguing. Kenosis is central to my own Christian faith. the idea of God sustaining creation sounds too much like pantheism and a dreamer God to me, but perhaps this book will give a different way of thinking about it, because creation as kenosis sound like the opposite to me. I just ordered the book by interlibrary loan.
I am certainly in favor of that. I did my masters thesis at seminary on the Metaphysical Implications of Contemporary Physics. But implications are not the same as objective findings.
I think of it as God being a juggler, keeping all the “balls” of basic particles “in the air” at the same time.
Doesn’t help. All that says to me is that God cannot create anything permanent or real. I just cannot see why a God worth believing in couldn’t or wouldn’t create something that stands on its own. Frankly the only coherent motivation I can see for a theology like this, is for religious people to exaggerate the importance of their god and thus their religion. It’s like the juggler saying LOOK AT ME – trying to be the center of attention! Sure the religious people love that because they want their god and religion to be the center of attention. But this a not a god I can admire or see any value in. Sorry. The more someone says look at me the more I become convinced there is nothing actually worth looking at. I guess I see far more value in the carpenter than the juggler – someone who actually creates something that has substance of its own, rather than just a show.
Furthermore it makes FAR more sense of what we see in nature through science that the whole point of natural law is because God IS creating something that stands on its own.
There is no way to tell the difference between “something that stands on its own” and something being continually sustained by a Creator, so this distinction is meaningless.
The theological motivation is the several places in scripture where it is clearly explained that God is the only self-existent thing, and that non-self-existent things depend continually on Him.
To me that sounds just like the atheist saying there is no way to tell the difference between God and no God.
OF COURSE, when we do things in theology there is no way to prove anything. It is all pretty subjective and it is just a matter of what makes more sense to us.
The difference between something substantial and just a show is pretty simple. The only reason for the way things are in a show is just because the performer decided to do things that way. But when you make something substantial then you have to give it rules by which it works. And what we see when we look at the world in science is a VERY thorough system of rules covering nearly everything. Thus it does NOT look like a show. In that case we are left with a choice between a machine-like god and a God who has created something machine-like – and the latter is far more appealing to me.
And… this analogy to a machine brings us to those passages in the Bible. Just because you make a machine doesn’t mean it doesn’t require maintenance. But that maintenance isn’t to keep the machine existing but to keep it working as it is supposed to. And the latter is what I think those Bible passages are about – not that God cannot or will not create something that exists on its own, but that God created for a relationship to be involved with events and thus He keeps things in line with His ultimate intentions.
I love it when atheists use this question to disprove the omniscience of God because they do not understand the concept of a rhetorical question 
oh - that will get you into hot water for considering a Jesus that is having a “natural” cause. Clearly, the word becoming flesh has to be magical, not logical as logic would not be good enough those who follow a God so powerful that he does overcome logic. Who would be so foolish to follow a God that is pure logic?
I find the word becoming flesh interpreted as Mary giving birth to a son conceived in rape intellectually and emotionally far more satisfying interpretation of the text than it being an act of magic that makes it an act that defies our understanding o human reproduction. It is exactly the defiance of evil that shows the power of God, to turn an act of hate and oppression, as which rape is commonly used as a weapon of war. into a beacon of love and hope. It is the ultimate victory over the evil that the word of God represents, to overcome it with love, not magic. Those who insist on God doing magic will always fail in the defence of their God for not having enough magic to prevent evil and completely fail in their explanation of the cross, whereby it explicitly says that it will become a sign of Gods glory
to admit something would imply personhood. Does science say things to you as well?
without the God factor, e.g. the postulation of order and comprehensibility of reality, there is no point in scientific investigation
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.