I’ve seen another view on Theistic Evolution. This is called “Deistic Evolution” This view suggests that a supreme being (AKA God) Created the universe and let it play out without intervening. Is this also a reasonable stance to take?
There are some complications of names. The standard “Enlightenment” deism had a number of specific beliefs, beyond just “God wound everything up and then let it run”.
Anyone can easily observe that most things follow the patterns of natural laws. This observation is compatible with numerous philosophical/religious ideas, including:
Everything just happens to exist, following laws that happen to exist - an atheistic view.
God (or roughly equivalent one or more designers) set everything up with natural laws and then let it run from there. This is a generic deistic approach.
God set everything up with natural laws and mostly let it run from there, but with occasional intervention, or with a focus on other areas such as spiritual things, letting physical stuff run itself.
God is actively involved in what happens, but is limited by certain factors in what He can do, producing a basically natural law pattern for the physical world.
God is actively involved in directing and sustaining everything that happens, normally following the patterns of natural laws, but free to act differently as He chooses.
The last is the picture given in the Bible. Deciding among those requires looking to other evidence besides science. Classic “Enlightenment” deism fell into the trap of proclaiming itself to be guided by universal Reason, when it was guided by commonly accepted beliefs of 17th to 18th century Europeans. It is possible to develop a fairly “reasonable” deistic view, but it’s important to carefully consider whether other views best account for the overall evidence.
4 Likes
I guess as time has went I’ve fallen into the view of God playing no actual role in any of it. At least nothing that is measurable. I just don’t see a spot where the gap demands supernatural intervention. I see scientific answers and gaps in scientific knowledge.
Now I wish, and I really mean it, I wish I could buy into even the remotest form of intelligent design even in the most earliest cosmological framework. I just don’t.
I don’t have an opinion on how God works into it. I don’t know if he knows everything and helped set it up, I don’t know if process and open theology and accommodationism opens up the possibility that god evolved somehow overtime in this universe, or if he started off in another universe where those in that universe reached the point to create other universes and have a way to merge between them. I don’t see solid answers that counters the arguments that accomondationism potentially opens up
1 Like
I think atheism is a reasonable stance to take.
But neither of these is compatible with Christianity.
In fact, in my experience Deism is effectively the same as atheism and tends to lead people to atheism because a God like that is irrelevant to the living of our lives.
And frankly I think Creationism is a better match with Deism with its watchmaker god than evolution or the Bible.
1 Like
Modernity has collapsed everything into two categories
- rational and real---- that which can be measured/observed thus real
- Irrational and unreal---- non measurable and therefore non existent.
But if we expand these states we create two more possible categories for things
3) irrational and real
4) rational and unreal
What do you think about that, a quanta of states?
One would need to explain what creation is and what the deity is and how they relate.
If one posits a unknown foundation for matter, created by an unknown deity, what have you even suggested.
Do you have a article or paper we could review and comment?
I think that if something is real there should be some form of concrete evidence for it. Regardless if it’s rational or irrational. If there is no evidence, regardless if it’s rational or irrational, then it’s either a gap of something we’ve not found proof for yet or either it’s something that by faith we choose to believe or not.
What counts as evidence ? would one persons observation count? The singularity is a construct based on math and physics, it is an irrational thing (cannot ever be measured or observed) but is it real?
Here are my current thoughts see what you think.
- rational and real ----material things, can be measured.
- irrational and real---- pi, circle (infinite sided polygon), singularity, God , fractals (not sure about that), cannot be measured
- rational and unreal---- logic, numbers, thoughts, potential, future and past, Spirit ? probabilities, memories, cannot be measured
- irrational and unreal— space (which is an absence of something) , empty set/ zero, contradictions, lies, cannot be measured.
One of my favorite math Vids for fun enjoy!
If we are arguing that there is evidence that there was supernatural forces behind the creation of the universe then it would need to be the scientific method to prove it.
Here is an easier way.
Can you tell me something that demands intelligent design behind it in the creation of the universe? Then can you tell me why it’s not simply a gap in what we know.
I am wondering if you even have a category in your thinking in which God can be placed. God is a similar concept to irrational real numbers. That which is, but can never be known in fullness. A circle is an irrational real thing because it transcends knowing, there is not a gap in understanding the infinite sides, it is simply unkowable, it transcends understanding.
I seems like you are saying one day we will comprehend the sides of an infinitely sided polygon, that is a category error. Godel incompleteness theorem proved mathematically there are true statements that cannot be proven within its own system.
the singularity that caused all things, is by definition a transcendent thing . Why? because the unified force cannot ever be measured as it is a substance unity. There is simply nothing to measure, no space, time, parts, particles, separated forces. Everything becomes one. That is a supernatural entity. it cannot ever be measured or comprehended.
1 Like
The problem is with your definition of the “watchmaker” . The Deistic definition of the OP
would be the watchmaker view.
IOW everything is set in motion within guidelines with no need to “tinker” or adjust.
Creationism does not restrict God in any way, nor claim that He is doing so either.
You really need to understand what “designing” entails without your “controlling” bias.
Richard
1 Like
I have often said that the watchmaker god is an idea of Deism. The truth is more the other way around. The idea originated in a teleological argument for the existence of God by theists (such as William Paley) but this quickly led to the Deist understanding of God. It is a good example of how these arguments for the existence of God tend to warp our understanding of God.
But why would a perfect designer need to tinker or adjust? The problem is with a failure to understand what God is creating and the difference between living organisms and machines. The creation of machines is all about design and thus a perfect designer would have no need to tinker or adjust. The creation of living organisms by contrast in all real life examples such as farmers, shepherds, teachers, and parents, is about relationship and being a part of their lives with some corrective measures when needed.
This is why the watchmaker analogy in the teleological argument for God led to Deism. A perfect designer wouldn’t have to tinker or adjust but simply sit back and watch.
Incorrect. It restricts God to an inability to create living things according to evolution as all the evidence shows to be the case.
I see no need to accept such empty rhetoric to prop up creationism against the findings of science.
Only if you do not understand it.
Theistic evolution works better than naturalistic evolution.
Because you see no problem with Natural (scientific) evolution.
Perhaps you are happy that Nature could just stumble across DNA with all its intricacies (Codes?), or even Water which has unique properties .Or the complex motion of wing flight? There are basic parameters (You call them Laws) that were either created or stumbled upon. And it doesn’t help to claim that they have to exist for the Universe to exist, that is just a chicken and egg style paradox.
Good luck with that
Richard
Theistic evolution works as a Christian understanding of evolution. It cannot work at all as a scientific theory.
It is because I understand what scientific explanations are supposed to do and their inherent limitations, rather than confusing them with what people expect of explanations in other fields such as theology.
I am happy with accepting the limitations of scientific inquiry, with no need to beat people over the head with personal religious beliefs and theological considerations.
And then I can switch from science to religion in order to go beyond those limitations – particularly the limitation to objective observation. Though truth to tell, religion has never been about looking for explanations to me but about personal identity and living my life – about the inherently subjective and participatory requirements of life.
There is a category I have for god. It’s called god. It’s irrelevant to the way you try to frame it with rational or irrational, or with math and so on.
I don’t disbelieve in God whatsoever. I believe in God just as much as anyone else, or more. I love my entire life as if there is a God. I’m not even remotely atheistic. I’m as far from an atheist that you can get. However, I am not someone who believes in intelligent design. I am a theist. I’m not a deist. I think God is active in this world, with humans, animals, plants, and even with whatever life that may live in other spaces of this universe, or even in other universes. I believe all of this by faith. I believe by faith because there is no evidence for God to prove he exists. There is no video, there is no photos, there is no genetic evidence left behind, there is nothing that can be brought to a unbiased human and present it to them and it proves beyond reasonable doubt God exists.
We can’t prove Yahweh exists or that Vishnu exists or that Thor exists. We can’t prove that they don’t either. It’s not because of a gap in science. It’s because of a gap between the natural and the supernatural. The Bible to me is not any more or less inspired than the Vedas or oral mythology handed down by indigenous people or in African faiths and so on.
Oh, ok that makes more sence of your position. Thanks for clarifying.
So how would you respond to this John guy who wrote:
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.
I would say it’s irrelevant to this discussion. I agree, John met Jesus. What about it in light of this convo?
So do you think Jesus is divine? hypostatic? fully God, fully man?
No opinion on it either way. I think he could equally be the byproduct of a Roman that sexually attacked Mary and he was born just like every other boy. Overtime, like in the myths of Enoch, Jesus became so tuned in with God that he was lifted above all man. Or a body that was possessed by God much like the stories of demons hijacking humanity. He could be the cosmic god made flesh, or he could be an incarnation of the god Yahweh who served El. Tons of possibilities. His resurrection may be literal, may be metaphorical, may be physical or may be spiritual. It may be the same type of resurrection wr receive, or may be completely different.
So after this. I’m only going to answer questions specifically centered around why you think intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.
That is your stance right? That creation makes it evident there is a god? That the natural world indicates a supernatural reality?
I would be careful about combining theistic and deistic evolution. Christianity is a form of theism and has tenets of faith such as the divinity of Jesus. Deism lacks these tenets. Many deists through the ages have rejected the divinity of Jesus (e.g. Thomas Jefferson).
Overall, I think theistic evolution is a very big tent that holds beliefs that are often contradictory, or at least hard to combine. I think this is why many of the founders of BioLogos introduced the term “Evolutionary Creationist” to describe their beliefs and differentiate themselves from some of the positions within the large tent of theistic evolution.
1 Like