God’s interventions?

There is no “clockmaker analogy” if God speaks to his flock in real time - - as the Universe runs. It’s all God.

George

Communications in real time. From God lips to man’s mind directly with zero time lapse. And to everybody. You would think that with this perfect communications channel to everyone that everyone would be getting the same message from God. But it doesn’t seem like that as some are getting the message to kill and some are getting the message to love one another.

I do think the musician metaphor does retain most of its power in its simplicity, with my particular interpretation of it (whether rightly or wrongly) being limited to seeing us (humans) strictly as instruments lovingly handcrafted, and played by God. Our lives, along with the rocks, trees, and hills all … are the music that is for God’s glory. I agree with you @Jon_Garvey, and @Eddie, that there is no deism anywhere in view here.

But I still am vague on God’s many roles, and it seems to me that the discussed metaphor leaves the bigger variety of options on God’s side. For example, while I really like the example of various music styles which allow for improvisational creativity of the moment, but still within the design parameters of the instruments involved; I think it important to remember that God isn’t just a performer who is unwittingly limited by imposed rules (as I’m sure you all agree.) But God is rather (and here the metaphor becomes much less human), the composer of the piece and the maker of the violin, and the inventor of the violin, and the inventor of all the various musical styles --and indeed music itself. So if God generally respects certain limits, as He apparently does, he is only doing it as a faithful expression to his own design parameters in the first place. We may think of these faithful expressions as “rules” or “scientific laws” which empirical materialists want to insist are unbreakable; but I would suggest could be better seen in the same way that a transportation engineer (or civil engineer) would view a speed limit on a road. These engineers make use of the terrain and put in appropriate banks on the curves, make sure that visual distances are appropriate and then set a recommended speed limit. It isn’t that they (the engineers) can’t (or don’t ever) break that speed limit --they just know that the road is optimized for a certain speed and they choose to respect it because, after all --they designed the road for that range of speed. That might be how God relates to the things we call “laws”. The difference being (unlike speed limits) we can’t just choose to break them when we wish --they really are imposed on us, and so are much more than just a suggestion under penalty like human laws are obliged to be. But I’m aiming here at what all such “laws” might be from God’s perspective and thinking that even the seemingly stronger “scientific laws” might begin to look more like “suggested speed limit” laws from God’s perspective. He knows how he designed the violin and he freely chooses to play it according to his own design parameters for it, causing it to emit the most beautiful possible melodies.

Merv

Moving off-metaphor (perhaps not before time!) it’s interesting how your idea changes if we think in terms more of created natures of things (in the tradition of Aristotle) rather than “physical laws” imposed upon things (in the tradition of Newton).

So from our point of view, we’d not be so much “bound to obey what’s imposed on us” as “free to be (only) what we are”. “We” in this case including everything in the material world. Like your speed limits, properties of forms are still based on God’s wisdom - what’s good for an aardvark might not be so good for a chamelion, and what’s the best way for a neutron won’t do for a neutron.

God would still be as free to alter or bypass the properties inherent in things (or of course, simply to use them in unaccustomed ways). But according to nature or not, melody and harmony are the aim.

Because my original thread with this graph (below) was closed a few days ago, I wanted to start a new one… But the system wouldn’t let me do that either. So this seems like the best place to kick off this kind of discussion - - on the nature of God’s interventions!

There is a potentially interesting question raised by @Patrick !

If you look at this graph [below] … you will see that survey results say that 82% of Scientists think Evolution occurred through “natural processes”.

Just a while ago, offline, Patrick has asked me questions implying how do I know that Scientists aren’t actually supportive of the idea that God ALSO uses natural processes in Evolution - - rather than miracles?

In the case of this survey, I would hope that if a Scientist sees 2 related choices:

"God guides evolution" vs.
"Evolution is by natural processes"

that the typical Scientist knows that a third choice was not just accidentally missing - - something like “God Guides Evolution with Natural Processes INSTEAD OF MIRACLES”.

But we’ve all seen how survey results can be influenced by subtle changes in wording. I don’t think this issue is THAT subtle… but I do think Patrick raises a point good enough to have a thread about it.

Here in BioLogos, I think most supporters believe God works with BOTH (Miracles and Natural Processes); I know Collins specifically includes both. But on the topic of Evolution, there does seem to be those who insist that God is only using natural processes in Evolution (while reserving the right to have Jesus walk on water by any other means if required).

Has anyone seen survey results comparing Scientists views of “God works ONLY through Natural Processes” compared to additional more miraculous means?

Thanks @Patrick, for the inspiration …

George

@gbrooks9

George - I agree that how you ask the question will definitely condition how people respond. However, if you want to ask scientists about evolution and God then the first thing the question should do it to clarify that it is not a professional question by starting with something like “In your personal opinion, …”. Otherwise scientists will take it as a professional question and since we all agree that science cannot make pronouncements on God then most will likely pick the answer that most resembles “only natural processes can be scientifically shown to determine evolution”.

1 Like

What!!!??? Hearken back to Aristotle!? I just had a vision of a horrified materialist all decked out in modernist enlightenment garb, holding out a copy of Newton’s Principia to ward off the Aristotlean demons.

But horrified modernist aside, the “natures of things” does seem to have always had its place within theist perspectives. I think the notion of us “being free to be what we are” is a very sound one. Thanks for that.

@Nuno @gbrooks9

I agree that wording can more than influence results … I would press on to add that it can make survey results nearly worthless.

It’s kind of like asking people on a survey: do you think that it was a motor vehicle that brought that person to the market? Or was it a driver’s plan or volition that brought him there? The materialists look into it and say “we see the car, but our professional instruments show us nothing of wills or volitions, so it is 100% car.” Would we then conclude that those who answered in such a way don’t believe there are such things as people who plan to visit the market?

@GJDS

Thank you for the reference - this does seem like it could be a fun read.

Even just these short quotes could support a discussion on various details but we can focus on the aspects you highlighted. I agree that the distinction between “fittest” and “most stable” seems more akin to different types of fitness rather than a different concept. On the utilization of “fortuitous”, it seems to me like it’s more of stylistic choice to help the text flow better - likely the intended meaning is such that you could substitute “stochastically unlikely” for “fortuitous” in this quote.

The “arrow of complexity hypothesis” certainly sounds like an interesting possibility to consider but note that it is framed as an “emergent process” rather than as teleological / indicative of an underlying purpose. That said, I can certainly see how even a limited scientific “arrow of complexity” model could lend itself to nice teleological interpretations, even if the model itself is not likely to require it or directly imply it.

And definitely the links between genotype and phenotype are anything but straightforward. Anyone claiming otherwise or denying the influence of cellular state and environment in observed phenotypes will have an impossible amount of biological evidence to struggle with.

The inability of science to have perfect knowledge of all the conditions influencing the outcome of our observations will always lead scientists (and certainly biologists, in particular) to model certain events as “random”. However, it is important to remember that science is founded on the fundamental assumption that the natural world can be explained if we find the right laws and are able to measure the relevant data. I would thus hesitate to ascribe “true randomness” (rather than “stocahstic”) intentions to scientific utilization of the term “random” unless the context makes it explicitly clear that this is what they mean (e.g., as in the case of the Bell test experiments in quantum mechanics).

I am not sure what prompted your quote above, but I assume it refers to Genesis 2 and Original Sin. If so, Patrick, you can be sure that I have questioned the Truth of this story for a longer time than you have, and no amount of exegesis or hermeneutics can make it true for me. But it is reasonable to believe the story was truthful when first expressed some 40K years ago when our Homo sapiens ancestor’s brains were transformed into minds and when God offered to make them co-creators with Him. This story had to be transmitted orally for perhaps 2,000 generations before writing was invented, during which time some of the transmitters came under the influence of people who believed in tribal gods–gods who experienced human-like emotions of jealousy, rage, and being insecure of their power.

So, like the parlor game of a whispered message passed around a circle of participants until it returned quite garbled, the original Truth became corrupted. God’s offer to let humans become co-creators was twisted into the idea that “the knowledge of good and evil” would threaten godly power and would warrant severe punishment. That garbled message was received in the time of Abraham and Moses and was written down a few centuries BC; e.g. Decalog: “For I, your God, am a jealous God.” And the ziggurats built by the Babylonians for astronomical observations were considered an abomination–humans trying to become gods.

As you surely realize, Patrick, my interpretation (?) of the old Testament is not looked on favorably by those who operate this BioLogos site. It probably is NOT the best way of reaching their primary target: young folks well grounded in Scripture, who are uneasy when faced with evolution being taught in their science classes. But for you, Patrick, and for so many of my European colleagues, raised Catholic but turned atheist, something should be offered that is now lacking. The above scenario allowed me to retain the core of my Faith and avoid hypocrisy–or so I hope!

Be honest, does it make good sense to you? Did you read my “Panel Truck” story I related in response to Kathryn Applegate earlier blog?
Al Leo

2 Likes

Much the same way that a good conductor gets the most out of his/her orchestra or a good teacher imparts good learning to her/his students.

God has so many tools at God’s disposal, it is a shame and an insult God to limit God to one, absolute necessity, particularly when God is not Absolute, but Relational. I have given you the answer, but you do not want to hear that which goes against your own bias.

God does not do things the easy way or the sure way. God does things the right way.

Al,
Your interpretation of the story kinda makes sense to me with 2015 knowledge. But that is not how the story was told to me at a young age. In the 1960’s it wasn’t fruit from the tree of knowledge, it was an apple tree with a talking snake in it. I was told by nuns that the story was an allegory, which I learned years later was a fancy name for a myth. I learned as a child that Catholic Catechism was far more important than biblical understanding, that dogma and doctrine were much more important than truth. You describe me as being raised Catholic and turning atheist. It would probably be more accurate to say that I was always agnostic and grow more agnostic and less cultural Catholic with time. I agree with you that something should be offered that is now lacking. But I haven’t seen anything in the past 30 years why being a practicing Catholic does anything to enrich my life and my family’s lives or adds to the purpose and meaning of my life or improves on the lives of others. I use to admire Catholic charities. But these have grown into full fledged megacorporations. So I prefer secular and even atheist charities over these Catholic mega corps.

Patrick, you did not say if you read my ‘miracle story’ about the panel truck. I think you are much like my friend, Eric, who felt like Christianity could add little or nothing to the purpose and happiness in HIS life. As an agnostic, he was a fine human being, and I believe the message on the truck said that God thought so, too. But some people DO find that a relationship with a Higher Power gives them more happiness and purpose than a life denying that such a Power exists. Eric’s wife and kids had the former kind of belief, and Eric’s relationship with them was much smoother after he rid himself of a hidden resentment of that fact.

I am sure that I am as skeptical a person as you are, Patrick. I seriously consider Doubting Thomas as my patron saint. But, perhaps by pure accident, I have had experiences that convinced me that there is some other-worldly Power in charge that wants to be my friend. Sounds weird, doesn’t it. Something queer, like handling rattlesnakes to prove one’s faith. I didn’t arrive at that conclusion by reading Scripture or by Church Dogma or the Lives of the Saints. But it sure makes my life joyful and pleasant, even when my beloved and I are growing more and more decrepit and nearing the end of our stay on this wondrous planet Earth.
Al Leo

Thanks for your response. I think I have said sufficient to support my overall outlook, which is that ND evolution, albeit is the current paradigm for evolutionary biology, cannot be considered as “settled science” in the normal way such a phrase is used amongst scientist. I do not have a problem with speculation, debates and a variety of views in any discipline of the physical sciences - however I do not put as much weight to ND wrt my theological faith based outlook and beliefs, as I do on other areas of the sciences. I agree with you broadly that there is much to discover and understand in the biological sciences and feel that those working in this area would find it an exciting time.

Theologically, I rely on what I understand is settled science, and particularly the intelligibility of nature, the unique aspects of the human spirit, and matters such as the constants in science and the inevitability of the universe from its beginning. Thus my points made in my initial post as “non-negotiable”.

I advise you not to take Patrick’s ill-advised statement as fact. The apparent present conclusions about human dna is that it contains some neanderthal dna as well, although not much. Of course, conclusions such as these are subject to likely change and reinterpretation, and so are quite inconclusive. Interesting how we just want to make the easier assumption… whatever it may be at the time. That would be quite the scientific method, wouldn’t it.

So, interesting analogy. The orchestra kind of just pops up by itself, with no help from God, and then God steps in to this orchestra, which he may or may not have created, to give them musical notes to follow, to encourage members to play well, scold them when they miss a note, fine them when they are late for rehearsal., etc. With such an analogy, are we to assume then that it is the giving of the notes, the musical pieces to which your analogy refers, and thus they end up playing only one masterpiece together, rather than a discordant mess of 20 simultaneous but different musical pieces? This kind of direction, eliminating 99% of possibilities from the outset, and finetuning the playing of the directed piece, is nothing close to the theory of evolution. This type of development could lead to all the different species in much, much fewer than 3.5 bill yrs, and includes the possibility of a six day creation. After all, what is the difference between a directed outcome of millions or thousands of years?

This is true, but meaningless, since the right way could be easy, or sure, or hard, or uncertain. Whatever way God does things, is right, by definition.

There are other ways of defining “accidents”.

[1] Someone could believe in 100% reductionistic determinism … and still consider genetic drift to be “an accident” - - in other words, no one INTENDED it.

[2] Someone could believe that in addition to genetic drift, the internal dynamic or logic of natural selection is NOT ACCIDENTAL. I understand why
they want to define non-random or non-accidental that way - - it gives them something to argue against some ID camps.

[3] And finally, while I don’t know anyone specifically who holds this third view - - there is probably SOMEONE, right? "God has general plans or intentions…
but allows nature a certain measure of chaotic play or uncaused randomness. I think this is a bunko position - - but that almost certainly guarantees that
SOMEONE holds it.

George

This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

10 posts were split to a new topic: Randomness vs. God’s interventions?