This whole theme of “being deceived by nature” is one I’m finding dubious at best. Fallibility and error are attributes of sentient beings --no; more than sentience even-- it requires intelligence. We playfully use the language of saying that “such and such” deceived me, but I can no more seriously blame the inanimate objects for this error than one of my math students can seriously blame deceitful numbers for their faulty arithmetic. The error is 100% the student’s responsibility. Numbers and nature can both be tricky, maybe even impossible to understand, but the mistakes in interpreting or using them are still ours.
A rock falling down a hill cannot in any coherent way be said to be “wrong” (or “right” either) as it does so. Perhaps if it failed to fall in mystifying defiance of gravity one might be tempted to think this would be an example of wrongness. But if we were to witness the spectacle we would rightly call it either miraculous or in further need of explanation. Which brings me to one more point you brought up earlier:
Nature by itself tells us things that are not true, for example. It tells us that miracles do not happen. But maybe that is just our interpretation?
I don’t see how nature can possibly “tell us” of any such thing, and hence I agree with (or answer) your following caveat that softens your conclusion to the possibility that it is just our interpretation. All we can do as we observe nature is draw conclusions about the relative rarity of miracles. But we knew that anyway by their very definition. Nature (or our observations of it rather) provide us with the stark relief against which the miraculous can stand out. Such special events are not in the ordinary course of nature as we see it. But nothing in nature militates against the notion of special events whatsoever (contra Hume). I.e. Hume has 0% support from science or nature or observations, and 100% metaphysical presupposition in play when he and his modern day followers deny the possibility of any/all supernatural events.
The bible does use playful language as its authors speak of rocks and trees praising their creator. But I think we err if we press that anthropomorphic metaphor into the service of then claiming that rocks and trees can be deceitful. God, spirits, human beings, … anything with intelligence to communicate are the only sources capable of true deceit, and the only entities capable of mistakes and misinterpretations. Even a computer program (say, a chat-bot) isn’t truly misinterpreting a phrase when it fails to respond appropriately or convincingly. It is merely a program, and as such fails to have any level of understanding at all (a prerequisite to the possibility of misinterpretation). If it correctly parses and reacts to your phrase, then the program still can’t be said to be “correct or true” even though we freely use those attributions to describe successful outcomes. It was merely following its programmed course, just like the rock falling down the hill. Any real success or real failure belongs 100% to the programmers (barring any real AI breakthroughs on this which don’t appear imminent, enthusiasm toward such aside).
So it would follow also that if non-sentient nature can’t be said to be anywhere on a fallibility spectrum, it certainly won’t have morality. That is only brought into play from above (and then from us as well), finding in nature its applications rather than its source.
Merv, I agree that it is difficult to attribute a moral deception (as if it were intentional) to nature. However, that nature deceives us is indisputable. We only know that nature deceives us, because we know the difference between what we see, and what is really happening. Otherwise we would not even know that nature deceives us. Even if we argue that our senses or our perception is what deceives us, our senses are still part of nature. This applies to the sun rising, to a “bent” stick in water, or to a mirage, as examples.
Allowing for this knowledge means that we need to be cautious in assuming that what we think we see, or what nature is showing us, is not deceptive in some way. I don’t mean deceptive intentionally, but rather that what (we think) we see is actually something else entirely. This is particularly true when we use our present observations of natural processes to assume that processes always happened in the same way and at the same pace, or that we can extrapolate by extending and expanding from present day observations to the distant past or the distant future.
When I argue that nature tells us that miracles do not happen, I mean that nature and natural observation does not have a law for miracles. Nature does not express a law of exceptions either. So miracles are miracles because they contradict nature, not because they contradict our understanding of nature. If merely our understanding changed, we would stop calling them miracles. If they did not contradict, then they could likely not be called miracles. On the other hand, we cannot observe miracles in the absence of nature. We use natural conditions and tools to observe the results of the miracle.
But all this is merely to say nature has limits even in revealing itself.
I think @Merv’s point still stands here. An optical illusion doesn’t mean “Nature” is deceptive, it means our human perceptions are deceptive. Also, by your own definitions, Scripture itself is also deceptive, because sometimes what we think we see on its pages is colored by our own cultural/linguistic limitations (as in the case of Calvin) to the point that we interpret it wrongly. I don’t think you would say that Scripture is deceptive, but that does seem to follow from your logic.
Any additional thoughts, @jstump? I feel like we are having a tough time distinguishing in this conversation between epistemology and ontology of truth, whether in Nature or Scripture.
An optical illusion is a perfect example of being scientifically deceived by nature, and not because of some philosophical or cultural/linguistic biases or limitations. I stated that I agree that nature is not somehow morally culpable. And I also stated that nature itself reveals the deception. I think you have to separate the word deception from moral implications. The deception is a scientific deception, or a natural deception, not a deception of interpretation. Of course, the question is always how large and comprehensive these natural illusions could be.
In the example of Calvin advocating for geocentrism, I think we can be quite sure that if he experienced the world revolving and circling the sun, that he would not have put forward the theological justification for geocentrism. The theological justification for geocentrism did tie into some apparent relevant passages, but primarily was associated with the cosmological idea that the universe was created primarily for man, and thus should be centered around man’s domain. But this theological argument did not skew his perception; it was a result of his natural perception.
In addition to natural deceptions, there are also deceptions based on our biases or philosophy of course. We might be deceived in that sense in not believing in miracles, or in believing a miracle has occurred when it has not. Our biases might cause us to reject certain scientific observations and to accept others; this is not nature deceiving us, but rather us being selective about what we observe. The trick is for us to be aware of the difference between the natural deceptions and our biased selection of observations. In some cases, the two effects may be combined.
Well, if you want to insist that nature is “deceitful” because of the undisputed difficulties we’ve seen from the past and still now in the present, then I’m with you there --I’ve probably used similar phrases myself before, though I will continue standing with the age-old wisdom that Sproul expresses above … “that all truth is God’s truth”. I think the two-book metaphor stands.
If you are clinging to the notion of deceitful nature as a kind of insulation against having to deal with evolutionary propositions that conflict with your particular theology, then I don’t follow you there. Are you also holding out that perhaps the earth does not move? When you dismissed the concept of biblical geocentrism with: “The theological justification for geocentrism did tie into some apparent relevant passages, but …”; those ‘apparently relevant passages’ that you so easily brush aside now were rock-solid claims to their defenders at the time, and they would have had no patience with your siding with new-fangled scientific notions of the day against what they would defend as the clear, straight-forward testimony of Scripture.
On the topic of geocentrism, I found this essay to be very educational; it is by an English professor (in 2001) about the “Copernican Cliche”, and it thoroughly debunks the now-popular (but imaginary) history of alleged progression of human knowlege from medieval, geocentric ‘self-importance’ to modern, enlightened ‘humility’. I think you would enjoy this, John, and it may cast a different light on your easy attribution to Calvin of … “the cosmological idea that the universe was created primarily for man, and thus should be centered around man’s domain.” Now maybe Calvin actually did think that (I’m no Calvin Scholar) —but he is not too far removed from the medieval thought that preceded him, which would have found this claim (‘importance of the earth’) to be bizarre.
In his “Argument” which prefaced his commentary on Genesis, Calvin writes that “We indeed are not ignorant, that the circuit of the heavens is finite, and that the earth, like a little globe, is placed in the center.”
To him it was important that earth was in center. Calvin was very much in favor of science as well, including astronomy. He favored the Ptolemaic astronomers at the time, as did many scientists. Another statement by Calvin:
For it appears opposed to common sense, and quite incredible, that there should be waters above the heaven. Hence some resort to allegory, and philosophize concerning angels; but quite beside the purpose. For, to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world.
It is clear that Calvin based his common sense on what was visible and observable. It is for that reason he rejected the word “firmanent” which he said should be translated as “expanse”.
And then, Calvin according to “Reformed Perspectives - Jason Foster (Ecology of Calvin)” indicated that the universe was created for man:
Calvin, however, believes that the creation was intended supremely to support human life and human endeavors. In addressing the six days of creation, Calvin detects a divine goodness uniquely directed towards humans in God’s ordering of the creation days.1 Calvin goes on to make a rather blunt link between the divine governing of creation and the divine purpose of creation: “But as we know that it was chiefly for the sake of mankind that the world was made, we must look to this as the end which God has in view in the government of it.”2 In his Commentaries on the Book of Genesis, Calvin is explicit in putting forth an anthropic principle in regards to creation. Calvin believes that the entire creation was ordained for man’s use and sustenance,3 which, in Calvin’s eyes further highlights humanity’s utter dependence on God and the need for obedience as the proper response.4
The deceitfulness of nature is not an insulation against anything; but it does give weight to the caution of thinking that something is as we see it. In other words, is this really real? What side of the prism are we on?
Keep in mind, I don’t concede that nature actually is truly deceitful, but only that we can readily imagine it as such since so much of it is opaque to our direct sensation or apprehension. I don’t think it in God’s character to inject deceit into something that is called good. Not that we can’t find the odd passage here or there in which a deceitful spirit is said to be sent from God. But on balance, I’ll stick with what I believe the bulk of Scripture shows us: that God is both true and good, and that He wants to save us, not deceive us.
Merv, I think you are still looking at deceit as a moral issue even when applied to nature. Deceit of nature is merely part of relativity, that our perception of it depends on our perspective. The deceit is a natural outcome of the laws of nature, such as the bending of light, or the speed of sound, or inertia, etc. It is related to our size relative to the universe, and to the limits of human abilities and senses. But this deceit also happens when we look at sedimentary rock where it sometimes looks like layers laid down by wind, when they actually were laid down by water. Nature has no intent to be deceitful because it has no intent on its own. Both aspects of a straight stick appearing to be bent, ie. the straightness, and the apparent bentness are true, yet they seem to contradict each other. God did not inject deceit, but certainly we know that what we think we see is not always what is actually real. That is the point.
This is no contradiction to your last statement that God is both true and good, which I agree with.
I hate to intrude into a good conversation, but I feel that you are leaving something important out of it.
There are not just two disciplines that are the basis Western Civilization, Science and Christianity, but three, with philosophy as the third. Science studies Nature, while Christianity studies God, Philosophy is the science of knowing. So philosophy is not about what we know, but how we know it and why it is true.
The biggest change in the way we know has come about through modern science. Modern science has said that what we know must be verified by critical experience. This means that we must test knowledge with experiments or controlled observations.
The world looks to be flat, but if that were true we could see Boston from New York from the top of a tall building, which we can’t. Thus a critical view of our experience shows us that what seems to be true sometimes is not. The sun appears to travel around the earth, but when we extended our vision through telescopes, we saw that other experience demonstrated that this is not true.
Modern science is based on Christianity. When Jesus was asked by the disciples of John if He were the Messiah, Jesus did not answer authoratively, Yes, but Look and see for yourselves. Jesus also said that a tree is know by its fruit, another pragmatic view of life. Jesus is the Logos, which means that the world can be understood through logic and observation.
There is another method for knowing and that is speculation. Greek philosophy is based on pure thinking or speculation. Unfortunately thinking divorced from experience is limited and Greek philosophy has reached its limits. If we are a future based on science and/or Christianity we need a new philosophy that informs our understanding of both nature and God.