Does the Success of Science Leave God Unemployed? (Part 2)

Faith & Science Conversation
21

Great question, Nuno. You’ll see in the Robert Russell pieces in two weeks that the quest is different from ID in that he looks for the “causal joint” in areas that would not be scientifically identifiable. If the quantum world is genuinely non-deterministic, then God might be able to influence the outcome of a quantum event while from the perspective of science, that event would still fall within the statistical regularities described by the quantum equations.

I think there are other problems with that view, but I’ll wait to discuss them until we post them.

For myself, I’m not so sure we will find an interface. I’m increasingly exploring the concept British philosopher Roger Scruton has termed “cognitive dualism” according to which we have two coherent but different ways of thinking about persons (whether human or divine): the personal (or sometimes called “manifest”) and the scientific. Think too of Martin Buber’s “I and Thou” which shows how sometimes we treat persons as subjects and sometimes as objects. There isn’t one complete description of the whole package. Of course this isn’t a proper defense of this position, just a suggestion that there are other ways of thinking about this problem than finding the interface.

22

Hi Eddie,

The bottom line is that you suggest that divine intentionality is an important component of the present discussion. I don’t see where this is argued and as such, I can’t agree just yet. I think the closest you come to an argument is where you say; "Discussing divine intentionality may not always require describing how God acts, but it certainly requires affirming that God acts; yet even that affirmation is simply unclear, in the writings of Miller, and in certain statements made by biologists on this site when they have hinted at considerable doubt on their part whether God actually determines the outcomes of evolution.”

Yes, I consider it as obvious as you that a total rejection of divine action makes any discussion on this topic a moot point, but I do not consider doubts about divine intervention or even intentionality in the process of evolution to be the equivalent to the assertion that God does not interact at all with the universe, and in fact, everyone you are speaking about seems to have affirmed the very opposite.

So, no, I think that this cannot be made into a legitimate reason unless it is bluntly affirmed that their protestations are disingenuous, which you say that you are not willing to do (although it is my strong impression based on many of your previous statements that this is very much what you suspect in many cases). If this is the case, and they are being disingenuous, then you may have a point here, but let’s be entirely clear about it, and keep in mind that such a provocative accusation is basically a conversation stopper. If this is not the case, then the point no longer stands, and we have no compelling reason (so far) to insert this question into the common discussion on divine action.

Either way, it is not clear to me how discussions on intentionality could even theoretically contribute anything to the question of how God acts in the universe. If you can find some thinkers who reject God’s interaction openly, then they will not accept the premise of the current discussion anyway and they are not involved in this discussion by default. If you find some thinkers who suspect that God largely or entirely works through regularities in the natural world in order to achieve global ends (a position that is harmonious, though not exclusively so, with the scientific narrative), while performing signs and wonders (miracles) as a part of salvation history, then they are a part of the same discussion and have exactly the same challenges to overcome when it comes to special divine action. I don’t see how this or any other in-between stance affects the question of divine action. This party distinction can only damage a common project in my view.

1 Like
24

Thanks Jim. I too will be looking forward to seeing how this series develops and, like you, will also save some of the more detailed comments for when the corresponding articles are posted.

I agree with you on the appeal of dualistic views but this series seems to be about defining the interface. If we are not aiming to formally identify and prove the existence of this “Divine Interface” in nature, then it is not clear how we could objectively assess and compare the models that will be proposed throughout this series.

If this is not clear at the outset then maybe we’ll know more at the end :slight_smile:

28

Hi Eddie,

It seems that all I’ve done is to somehow bring out your irritation with TEs through my requests for clarification about the purpose of introducing divine intentionality or the blunders of TEs in this discussion, and I’m sorry if this is the case or if you feel that I’ve misrepresented your thinking. It has also become increasingly clear that I will simply not end up with a clear answer to this question and that my appeal for a more constructive dialogue is not particularly appreciated, so I will bow out at this point and leave you to your ongoing efforts at keeping TEs on the straight and narrow;-). As I’ve always said, I place great value on your constructive input here and you tend to raise the level of the conversation on the theology side, so I will continue to read you comments with interest. I look forward to our next conversation and to any thoughts you might have on divine action.

29

I am interested in reading the series before making any specific comment, but I am somewhat taken aback by the implication that God’s sovereignty (and the related subject of determinism) are somehow equated directly with actions of human being. Briefly, God is goodness and the source of all that is good - rejecting and/or rebelling against the good has been determined in toto, to be the absence of good and within a religion, a great deal of effort has taken place to understand and articulate such acts, which are generally termed sin.

It is inappropriate to say that God has determined that we would sin. God understand that we may sin, and the Christian faith has a lot to say about this.

God is sovereign and that means He is able to deal with the outcomes of human folly and evil acts.

31

@jstump… really nice quote!

I think this is one of those HIT PARADE quotes… at least WITHIN the BioLogos community … @BradKramer, maybe this kind of “Top 100” quotes belongs to a different category … for those who are familiar with the BioLogos discussions. Prior to this, the “Top 100” nominations I would make were for quotes that even Non-BioLogos readers would value. Below is the link for this posting:

32

@jstump

Addressing these two claims.

  1. Evolution based on ecological change is the best scientific description for how human beings developed.

  2. God intentionally created human beings by setting up this process, meaning developing DNA and how it works in the reproductive process.

  3. God also established the way that the climate and geography of the earth evolved in at least 6 stages.

God therefore works through nature and evolution in two ways, through genetics, that is Variation, and more importantly in my view through the environment, that is Natural Selection. For instance we can say that the world is rationally constructed because human can rationally understand how it works, and because humans developed as rational beings because their rational brains/minds gave them an evolutionary advantage over other creatures. If we fail to use the brains/minds evolution/God gave us, we will become extinct like other species.

Natural Selection creates life forms to fit into ecological niches because form follows function.

God has made it clear that God has determined the final, ultimate form of history, which is the Kingdom of God. The only question is How will that take place? The basic view of the Bible seems to be that time and history will collapse, evil will be purged, and the righteous and righteousness will be restored.

I have no problem with this. Still, I would prefer however that the ending of time be less violent and more evolutionary. That is up to us and God.

33

@gbrooks9

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Jer 1:5

Forgive me if my statements are disjointed and seem out of context, I’ve not been following this thread or Biologos for that matter. I can’t help but interject here.

The verse came to mind after reading your answer 2. Anyone who suggests God has to wait for time to unfold doesn’t acknowledge what scripture says of God. Namely that He is eternal in every sense of the word. God isn’t held captive by time, rather God created time when He created space. If anyone would say otherwise I would respond: Are we pantheists that we would make God subject to confinement in our universe? Do we deny the account of God’s kingdom being of a spiritual nature?

George, i believe you are very sensible to suggest we cannot know the mind of God nor confine it to our own understanding. All of creation is finished from God’s perspective.

“But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” 2 Pet 3:8

He knows the end from the beginning, so says the bible . This is the natural effect of God not being confined to time. He’s not twiddling his thumbs between miracles and he’s not answering prayers one at at time either. Seems to me everything to God would be now. (it does get interesting when you consider that God, in the person of Jesus, stepped into creation)

If God created life once, as many here suggest, then wouldn’t it be likely that God created DNA preprogrammed for all life? If God could create one life that was programmed to diversify into all life, isn’t it also quite possible that God created many lives also preprogrammed to diversify but confined to a basic structure?

Point is, once God is allowed into the creation of life, the how’s become less imperative. The why is far more interesting now. Why did God create us? Jesus Christ told us it is that we should become “sons of God”.

I’m not trying to criticize at all, I hope to encourage you to continue pursuing the important things. Namely that you enjoy the wonder of creation as a way of giving credit where credit is due rather than letting God be defined by what seems reasonable to some.

I’ve mostly stopped reading these forums because we are supposed to be known by our love one for another. Instead I find ECs are embarrassed by YECs who are angry at TEs and just goes round and round; that seems counterproductive.

1 Like
34

@jon_doe

I can’t disagree with anything you’ve written. I hope you didn’t think I would.

There are plenty of people on this list who need to read your posting.

35

Yes, this is indeed the crux of the issue. Even if God is somehow directing the natural processes that resulted in a seemingly fine-tuned earth with the right conditions for the eventual evolution of conscious human beings, the question still remains: at what point does that divine intention meet physical processes? I agree with Jim as well, that the science and religion conversation might need a major conceptual shift. Some very interesting work has been coming out of other traditions, such as Eastern Orthodoxy - be sure to tune in for Chris Knight’s posts in the upcoming weeks! In his books, he actually argues that re-figuring our metaphysical model of the God-world relationship might open up the conversation in a way that Western Christianity has failed to do effectively. And to Tom’s point above, there may be a way to think about all divine actions occurring at the moment of creation in a single act. Knight argues this (persuasively, in my view) by highlighting the nature of time itself. In a post-Einstein world, how does the shockingly counterintuitive nature of time affect the way we think about divine action? The jury is still out, but it does seem like we need a few new frameworks and categories in which to talk about divine action!

36

Well said. What we consider to be ‘physical,’ ‘spiritual’, or even ‘natural’ is entirely unclear and debatable. Ironically, one thing that Christians and atheists alike often affirm is a seemingly static assumption of what is properly ‘natural.’ Hence, you have atheists saying that God could not possibly exist, let alone act, because of the self-sufficiency of the natural world…and you have Christians affirming divine intervention, which assumes the same metaphysical model in which the world is self-sufficient, and only occasionally tinkered with in divine action. It’s a fascinating historical feature of Western Christianity, but I think many of us are hungry for different ways of thinking about all this!

37

Yes, the argument of the fine-tuned universe is a compelling one for many. One challenge to it, though, is that it is completely perspectival. It seems to us like the universe has been finely orchestrated by God to result in human existence, but of course it feels that way to us - we’re here to experience it. If the physical constants and processes had been slightly different, we would not be here - but something else may have been. The point is that it can be very difficult to see the universe from anything but our perspective; an atheist might well say that humans simply are the result of a long line of physical processes that necessarily resulted in conscious humans. Any other set of physical constraints would have resulted in a completely different universe, but need that be any less ‘special’? The larger issue remains…even if we say that God did finely tune the natural world, exactly HOW does that happen? Does God step in here and there and move atoms around? How does the divine creative will interact with physical processes? How should we think about the interface between spiritual intentions and physical events?

38

Here’s a great quote that I find quite relevant, by Aubrey Moore in 1889 as he was arguing for Christian acceptance of evolutionary theory: ‘…a theory of occasional intervention implies as its correlative a theory of ordinary absence.’

2 Likes
39

@gbrooks9 I remember you from some time ago as the grown-up in the room. I was only hoping to amplify your position of rationality and reason.

1 Like
41

Ahh… this is the post I wrote about your position:

“@jon_doe
I can’t disagree with anything you’ve written. I hope you didn’t think I would.
There are plenty of people on this list who need to read your posting.”

We are united in our hopes for BioLogos!

42

@laneritchie

Sarah,

I am interested in what Chris Knight has to say.

However I am chagrined that people at BioLogos are willing to consider the theology of the Eastern Church over the theology of Augustine which is the basis our Western theology and science. History does not go backwards. The mysticism of the East is not the way forward.

If one is really looking for something new, then the triune model of Reality is a clear alternative, but no one seems to be interested in giving it a fair hearing, even though it has a strong Biblical foundation.