That’s an interesting question, Eddie. Inquisitive minds want to know!
At the same time, it’s worth noting that the author of Proverbs did not feel it necessary to give an example of the means by which God could determine the roll of a pair of dice.
The lot is cast into the lap,
but its every decision is from the Lord. - Proverbs 16:33 (ESV)
The previous verse (16:32) is about anger; the following verse (17:1) is about the relative value of financial abundance vs. peace. So Proverbs 16:33 simply makes the assertion of God’s determining the outcome, then moves on to other topics.
Does that make sense? Is it permissible to say that one believes that God determines the outcome, without being able to offer any elaboration?
Agreed. If BioLogos’ purpose is only testimonial, then there’s no need for any articles presenting scientific arguments, either.
But if one is discussing “evolutionary creation”, if the intellectual case for evolution is argued, then so ought the intellectual case for “creation” in relation to it to be argued.
@Eddie, still at it then? Still insisting that writers supporting BioLogos must specifically specify that which cannot be specified?
You are asking Theologians, and Scientists, to make specific assertions about unknowable metaphysics?
@Chris_Falter’s mention of Proverbs 16:33 is on point:
The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord. - Proverbs 16:33 (ESV)
Below is a discussion of “Cleromancy”:
“. . . . a form of sortition, casting of lots, in which an outcome is determined by means that normally would be considered random, such as the rolling of dice, but are sometimes believed to reveal the will of God, or other supernatural entities. . . . . Casting of lots occurs relatively frequently in the Bible, and many biblical scholars think that the Urim and Thummim served this purpose. In the Hebrew Bible, there are several cases where lots were cast as a means of determining God’s mind”:
In the Book of Leviticus 16:8, God commanded Moses, “And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat.”
According to Numbers 26:55, Moses allocated territory to the tribes of Israel according to each tribe’s male population and by lot.
In Joshua 7, a guilty party (Achan) is probably found by lot and executed.[citation needed]
In the Book of Joshua 18:6, Joshua says, “Ye shall therefore describe the land into seven parts, and bring the description hither to me, that I may cast lots for you here before the LORD our God.” This action is done in order to know God’s will as to the dividing of land between the seven tribes of Israel who had not yet “received their inheritance”. (Joshua 18:2).
Also in the First Book of Samuel 14:42, lots are used to determine that it was Jonathan, Saul’s son, who broke the oath that Saul made, “Cursed be the man that eateth any food until evening, that I may be avenged on mine enemies.” (1 Samuel 14:24).
In the Book of Jonah 1:7, the desperate sailors cast lots to see whose god was responsible for creating the storm: “Then the sailors said to each other, “Come, let us cast lots to find out who is responsible for this calamity.” They cast lots and the lot fell on Jonah.”
In I Chronicles 26:13 guard duties are assigned by lot.
One other notable example in the New Testament occurs in the Acts of the Apostles 1:23-26 where the eleven remaining apostles cast lots to determine whether Matthias or Barsabbas (surnamed Justus) would be chosen to replace Judas.
In the Eastern Orthodox Church this method of selection is still occasionally used. In 1917 Metropolitan Tikhon was elected Patriarch of Moscow by the drawing of lots. In the Coptic Orthodox Church, drawing lots is still used to choose the Coptic Pope, most recently done in November 2012 to choose Pope Tawadros II.
I look forward to your hounding of leaders of the ID political movement to be far more specific about who the Designer is, when the Designer designed, when the Design was manufactured, etc.
Hope you are enjoying the fruits of God’s work in your life today. I agree that Biologos authors should go beyond testimony, and answer questions about:
hermeneutical approaches to Scripture
the delineation of responsibilities between science, philosophy, and faith
historical development of the relationship between science and faith, especially as seen in stances on evolution
the scientific evidence in favor of evolution, presented in a manner friendly to Christians
evidence for Christian faith, presented in a manner friendly to scientists
That’s an awfully big agenda right there. And I happen to think Biologos is doing a pretty good job on all those fronts.
The particular point you want Biologos authors to address, if I am understanding you correctly, is the causal joint between first cause (God’s will and purpose) and secondary cause (what happens in nature). Many philosophers and theologians have addressed the question, to be sure, but the humble among them have always labeled their thoughts as speculation. As well they should, because:
That causal joint is inherently a mystery.
The Scripture, which God has given us as a means to encounter Him and to understand everything we need to understand in the life of faith, hope, and love, does not provide any guidance whatsoever on this question.
If you truly think that the question of the causal joint must be addressed in order to understand the relationship of faith and science, then I suggest you take your complaint to the author of the book that we accept as the canon of our faith. Please let us know how He replies, because I would sure like to know myself. Perhaps He has already addressed it, and I just overlooked it. If so, I would welcome some illumination from a scholar such as yourself.
The Word of God tells me that the decision from casting lots comes from God, which I take to mean he determined how the lots would end up. The Creation of God tells me that how they end up is a result of natural causes. I am interpreterting what the Bible and Nature are saying. My interpretation may be wrong, but it feels right to me and that is good enough.
BTW, if you haven’t noticed I am a man of few words.
G’day. The whole notion of mapping concepts from one language/culture/time/place to another is fraught with difficulty, as you probably know better than I. Someone could even say that the word “nature” is used in 0.0% of the Bible, because “nature” as used by Francis Bacon or Chris or Eddie has a meaning in our English language context that has no exact counterpart in the original manuscripts written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
So we try to understand the original contextual meaning of the Scriptures as best we can. We note that the ancient Hebrews seemed to have an understanding of how the world worked; that understanding would be a rough equivalent of our concept of nature. Their understanding was different in important ways, of course; they seemed to think that men carried their future offspring as “seed” that would get injected into a woman and grow, for example. But however imperfect their understanding was, they believed that the cosmos created by God had certain properties that could be understood and used to make reliable predictions. Jump off a cliff, and you’ll hit the ground below at a high and probably fatal speed a short while later–unless God intervenes.
So I respectfully disagree with you, Eddie. Embedded as his words are in the collection of books we call the Bible, the human author of Proverbs 16:33 had a concept of nature with reliable, predictable behavior. (Many proverbs could be cited to this effect.) He also stated that God could and would direct outcomes as He saw fit. Moreover, these concepts (a predictable “way the world works” and God’s ability to direct outcomes as He sees fit) are present in the rest of the Scripture, as best I can tell.
And somehow the divinely inspired authors of Scripture never felt the need to delineate any mechanism for the interaction between what we now call God and nature. God spoke it and it happened (“and there was evening and morning on the first day”) is about as close as you get.
Do you disagree, Eddie, with my thesis? To phrase it as directly as I can: “The Scripture simply states, without providing explanatory details, that God determines the outcome of events that would today be regarded as the outcome of the laws of physics, chemistry, and other branches of science.”
I don’t wish to get an argument over terminology, by the way. If you don’t like the term “causal joint,” I invite you to propose a term you think is better suited to the discussion.
If you think their views are indispensable to an understanding of biology and Scripture, I invite you to educate us. Personally, I am satisfied if Biologos covers the following aspects of the biology/Scripture dialog:
The word “supernatural” does not occur in the Bible, either. Perhaps this is because the very category of “supernatural” would have had no meaning to a first-century individual. For the ancients, existence enveloped both the seen and the unseen – two sides of the same coin. We cannot see the spiritual realm, but it is so present that Paul (taken as a representative first-century Jew) could tell the philosophers of Athens that “we live and move and exist” within it.
Where moderns see an effect and attribute it solely to a physical cause, the ancients could see that same effect and attribute it to both a physical and a spiritual cause, simultaneously. Their worldview embraced a spiritual realm intimately involved in everyday existence. To a Jew, God was not just the Creator; he also was the Sustainer and Provider and Ruler of his creation. Jesus, for instance, could declare that God provides the ravens with food and sends his rain upon the evil and good alike, all the while knowing that plants produce the seeds eaten by birds and clouds produce the rain that falls upon the ground. For him, the fact that an observable physical cause provided a sufficient explanation did not exclude the active involvement (dare I say “causation”) of God in the process. How he does this is a question we cannot answer.